I take your point about reliability, but I have no option other than finding a multi-site solution.
Unfortunately, in my experience sites are much less reliable than individual machines, and so in a way coping with site failure is more important than individual machine failure. I imagine that the risk profile changes according to the number of machines you have, however. Thanks for the input Martin On 6 March 2010 18:29, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > What you describe is relatively reasonable, even though Zookeeper is not > normally distributed across multiple data centers with all members getting > full votes. If you account for the limited throughput that this will > impose > on your applications that use ZK, then I think that this can work well. > Probably, you would have local ZK clusters for higher transaction rate > applications. > > You should also consider very carefully whether having multiple data > centers > increases or decreases your overall reliability. Unless you design very > carefully, this will normally substantially degrade reliability. Making > sure that it increases reliability is a really big task that involves a lot > of surprising (it was to me) considerations and considerable hardware and > time investments. > > Good luck! > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Martin Waite <waite....@googlemail.com > >wrote: > > > Is this a viable approach, or am I taking Zookeeper out of its > application > > domain and just asking for trouble ? > > > > > > -- > Ted Dunning, CTO > DeepDyve >
