We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
文章中提到「透過對 2PC 的學習,我們將繼續努力實現更好的一致性演算法,比如 ZooKeeper(Zab)和 etcd(Raft)中使用的演算法」,想問現實在開發上是不是比較少會選擇像是 2PC + XA 協議的方式來處理分散式共識問題(因為效能關係:資料庫隔離層級需要改成 Serializable 級別 or 文章提及的協調者故障或失效的話參與者只能等待的不確定狀態)?
又想問各位在實際開發中會不會盡量避免處理分散式的共識問題?有的話是採用哪種方式?(目前有聽到的可能 ZooKeeper 居多)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Zookeeper 就是用來處理時間。 資料擷取照著某時間點往下拉,勁量讓每個 Worker 拉到正確的時間段。 Zookeeper 用 squential consistency 來確保不會拉到舊的。
Sorry, something went wrong.
No branches or pull requests
文章中提到「透過對 2PC 的學習,我們將繼續努力實現更好的一致性演算法,比如 ZooKeeper(Zab)和 etcd(Raft)中使用的演算法」,想問現實在開發上是不是比較少會選擇像是 2PC + XA 協議的方式來處理分散式共識問題(因為效能關係:資料庫隔離層級需要改成 Serializable 級別 or 文章提及的協調者故障或失效的話參與者只能等待的不確定狀態)?
又想問各位在實際開發中會不會盡量避免處理分散式的共識問題?有的話是採用哪種方式?(目前有聽到的可能 ZooKeeper 居多)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: