You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@zookeeper.apache.org by "Kiesslich, Thomas" <th...@siemens.com> on 2008/11/18 14:58:17 UTC
Watches are one time trigger?
Hi,
A watch is designed as a one time trigger. Why have you designed it that way? Why not as a normal listener?
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards
Thomas Kießlich
Siemens Enterprise Communications GmbH & Co. KG
HiPath Applications
SEN LIP DA 11
Schertlinstr. 8
81379 Munich, Germany
Re: ZooKeeper Roadmap - 3.1.0 and beyond.
Posted by Mahadev Konar <ma...@yahoo-inc.com>.
Hi Krishna,
Sorry for the delayed response. The responses are in line.
On 11/18/08 12:02 PM, "Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" <ks...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Have a couple of questions on the proposed multi-tenancy feature (pardon
> me if they are obvious, as I am slowly getting up to speed):
>
> a) First, good initiative. I think this will make ZK more
> pervasive. I plan to participate and contribute
thanks and we look forward to your contribution.
> b) Is there any assumption on the trust and security ? i.e. could
> we assume that the servers would be in a secure environment and so no
> need for SSL et al., could we trust the MAC Address/IP Address (this
> also raises the question of NAT et al, if they are relevant) and could
> we make an assumption that there is no need for a secure identity ?
There is an assumption to some level. We do trust the ipaddress (got via
tcp connections assuming its difficult to forge) and we use
Raw tcp (so no security in the transfer layer). We do have a authorization
layer that is pluggable at the server and the clients can identify
themselves using that.
> c) I remember seeing one of Ben's ToDo, an entry for distributed
> ZK. I couldn't find a resolution or write-up. Possible, I am missing
> something obvious. Anyway, Is it already in place or do we need to
> consider that feature in the multi-tenancy capability ?
Its still in discussions. We don't have a conrete proposal yet. For multi
tenancy we don't need to consider it.
mahadev
>
> Cheers & thanks
> <k/>
>
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: Benjamin Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
> |Sent: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:35:37 -0700
> |To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org
> |Subject: ZooKeeper Roadmap - 3.1.0 and beyond.
> |
> <..snip/>
> 5) (begin) multi-tenancy support. A number of users have expressed
> interest in being able to deploy ZK as a service in a cloud.
> Multi-tenancy support would be a huge benefit (quota, qos, namespace
> partitioning of nodes, billing, etc...)
>
> <..snip>
>
Re: ZooKeeper Roadmap - 3.1.0 and beyond.
Posted by "Krishna Sankar (ksankar)" <ks...@cisco.com>.
Have a couple of questions on the proposed multi-tenancy feature (pardon
me if they are obvious, as I am slowly getting up to speed):
a) First, good initiative. I think this will make ZK more
pervasive. I plan to participate and contribute
b) Is there any assumption on the trust and security ? i.e. could
we assume that the servers would be in a secure environment and so no
need for SSL et al., could we trust the MAC Address/IP Address (this
also raises the question of NAT et al, if they are relevant) and could
we make an assumption that there is no need for a secure identity ?
c) I remember seeing one of Ben's ToDo, an entry for distributed
ZK. I couldn't find a resolution or write-up. Possible, I am missing
something obvious. Anyway, Is it already in place or do we need to
consider that feature in the multi-tenancy capability ?
Cheers & thanks
<k/>
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Benjamin Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>
|Sent: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:35:37 -0700
|To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org
|Subject: ZooKeeper Roadmap - 3.1.0 and beyond.
|
<..snip/>
5) (begin) multi-tenancy support. A number of users have expressed
interest in being able to deploy ZK as a service in a cloud.
Multi-tenancy support would be a huge benefit (quota, qos, namespace
partitioning of nodes, billing, etc...)
<..snip>
RE: Watches are one time trigger?
Posted by Benjamin Reed <br...@yahoo-inc.com>.
Watches also do not have any data associated with them, so even if they were not one-time, you would not get any extra information and you have the potential of generating a lot of extra network traffic.
ben
-----Original Message-----
From: Mahadev Konar [mailto:mahadev@yahoo-inc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 8:38 AM
To: zookeeper-user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Watches are one time trigger?
Hi Thomas,
Yes, watches are one time triggers. Watches are supposed to be lighweight
and local to the server you are connected to.
We designed it such that it has minimum load impact on the servers.
mahadev
On 11/18/08 5:58 AM, "Kiesslich, Thomas" <th...@siemens.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A watch is designed as a one time trigger. Why have you designed it that way?
> Why not as a normal listener?
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards
> Thomas Kießlich
>
> Siemens Enterprise Communications GmbH & Co. KG
> HiPath Applications
>
> SEN LIP DA 11
> Schertlinstr. 8
> 81379 Munich, Germany
Re: Watches are one time trigger?
Posted by Mahadev Konar <ma...@yahoo-inc.com>.
Hi Thomas,
Yes, watches are one time triggers. Watches are supposed to be lighweight
and local to the server you are connected to.
We designed it such that it has minimum load impact on the servers.
mahadev
On 11/18/08 5:58 AM, "Kiesslich, Thomas" <th...@siemens.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A watch is designed as a one time trigger. Why have you designed it that way?
> Why not as a normal listener?
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / With best regards
> Thomas Kießlich
>
> Siemens Enterprise Communications GmbH & Co. KG
> HiPath Applications
>
> SEN LIP DA 11
> Schertlinstr. 8
> 81379 Munich, Germany