On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 12:16 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Karan, > > Il giorno gio 3 ott 2019 alle ore 23:41 Karan Mehta > <k.me...@salesforce.com.invalid> ha scritto: > > > 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. > > > > > Usually the answer is "yes", the server should be upgraded before upgrading > the client. > But currently latest clients are compatible with older servers as far as > they do not use new features. > This is a cool "feature", in BookKeeper ecosystem we have very different > applications. > In my case it is possible that an application is using an older cluster. > > Apart fro that consideration, the real problem is that having a client that > just asks for an unsupported digest type makes the bookie auto-shutdown is > kind of a DoS security flawn > > It is better to fail the write > I agree with Enrico. I am not sure why we should shut down bookie. Just fail the write and let Ops decide the corrective action. JV > > > > > > > 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! > > > > > I am fine with the WriteFlags option, it is consistent with current API and > WriteFlags appeared just during those discussions about "ledger > types"/"Qos"..... > > When sending out code please ensure to split the patch into smaller tasks, > at least two: > - server side changes > - client side changes > > You could also add an integration test about what happens when a new client > uses the new WriteFlag against an old bookie, it should receive an error > > Enrico > > > > > > > > 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> > > > -- Jvrao --- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - Mahatma Gandhi
