Thanks for the feedback. I will create a BP soon. > I won't shutdown the bookie, simply fail the write. It may happen in case of a partial upgrade of the cluster and a write with a new digest type comes to the bookie
Interesting point. As per my assumptions, `All the options assume that the server version will be greater than client version.`, this should not happen. I guessed most organisations operate and release in that fashion. I can confirm for Salesforce. If you believe that is not the case, we should discuss. > Thinking about the future and about ideas shared with JV some month ago, I lean towards having ledger metadata in the bookie. Having metadata opens the way to new features, like per ledger storage type Yes it does bring those benefits, however I have two counter-args to it. 1. It adds a RPC call and all the potential complexities of dealing with zk in the critical path for at least some writes (later on we can cache obviously). 2. Most of ledger storage or QoS related stuff (some of our internal use cases require that), can also be driven via writeFlags. Hence we decided to opt on it. Internally we are going by the writeFlags option for now. We will keep the community posted if we make any progress and also would require your help to counter any challenges that we face along the way. Thank you! On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 11:12 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you for sharing this work. > Two initial comments: > > Error handling: > Unable to instantiate digest manager for that type > Decline the write, shutdown itself and wait for external orchestrator to > restart > > > I won't shutdown the bookie, simply fail the write. It may happen in case > of a partial upgrade of the cluster and a write with a new digest type > comes to the bookie > > > Which option is better? > Thinking about the future and about ideas shared with JV some month ago, I > lean towards having ledger metadata in the bookie. > Having metadata opens the way to new features, like per ledger storage type > > > Enrico > > Il gio 3 ott 2019, 18:44 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > Hi Karan, > > > > Thank you for your proposal. Can you also add your proposal as a BP to > the > > BP list? You can check the BP process here: > > http://bookkeeper.apache.org/community/bookkeeper_proposals/ > > > > Thanks, > > Sijie > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 5:53 AM Karan Mehta <k.me...@salesforce.com > > .invalid> > > wrote: > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > I wrote up a document here <https://salesforce.quip.com/FmlEAnMbtjnU> > > for > > > Apache Bookkeeper Checksum Validation for the issue > > > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/issues/1046>. I have added > certain > > > options and highlighted the pros/cons of each design. I would like to > > hear > > > everyone's thoughts on it. Feel free to comment on the doc to suggest > > > ideas. Thanks for your inputs! > > > > > > -- > > > Karan Mehta > > > > > > <http://smart.salesforce.com/sig/k.mehta//us_mb/default/link.html> > > > > > > -- Karan Mehta <http://smart.salesforce.com/sig/k.mehta//us_mb/default/link.html>
