Mark Lamb napsal(a): > Hello all, > > And humble apologies to Angus and Steve who I mailed on this same subject before realising that mail should be addressed here. > > > I've been tasked with investigating the possibility of using Storm (and therefore Zookeeper) to support the distributed processing aspect of a new product. Our current offering is supported on Windows and Linux, split 70:30 respectively in the customer base, so whatever tool we choose needs to be supported in both environments. From what I've gleaned about Storm (I'm a newbie to distributed processing, but have experience with ZeroMQ) it looks like a neat product, and one that I would really like to work with. My problem is that everything I have read about Storm has a Linux focus, and whilst I understand why that is, I would prefer to work with a tool that can give us what we need on the Windows platform as well. (It also has quite a Java focus, and if I can write what we need in C++ then that is preferable) > Corosync is not (yet) supported on Windows. Linux is best supported and *BSD (specially FreeBSD) should also work quite fine. > Whilst reading about Zookeeper I came across a mention of Corosync and would be interested to learn more, especially as it's written in C (we have a vast library of algorithms written in C++) as that would avoid us having to use things like JNI > > I don't want to freak you out with too many questions but would be really interested to hear if you think Corosync would help us to produce our new framework (not literally of course). > > I am particularly interested in knowing if Corosync (whether standalone or in tandem with other projects) provides a viable alternative to Storm/Zookeeper > Corosync is little lower level then Zookeeper. Zookeper (AFAIK) provides "filesystem" with some atomic operations, which can be used to implement services like locking, ... Corosync itself provides only CPG service (broadcast message, membership, no queuing), Quorum service and simple configuration + statistics database (called cmap). On the other hand, Corosync has some neat properties like it's fully distributed (Zookeper transport level ZAB is typical central sequencer model). Corosync also handles better situations with partitioned cluster (because CPG is more or less stateless). I'm also unsure if ZAB supports other transport them multicast (Corosync supports also 1:1 UDP and Infiniband, together with Redundant Ring). In other words. As long as you are fine with simple messaging, Corosync is right tool for your project (I believe Windows port (cygwin) should be achievable in few weeks especially if you are willing to test patches + report results). If you need more (persistent storage, ...) ready out of the box, Zookeeper is probably better suited. Regards, Honza > Feel free to look at the website if you're interested in the sort of thing we do. > Cheers, > Mark Lamb > Software Architect > HBM United Kingdom Limited > Tel: +44 (0)1723-870701 > Fax: +44 (0)114 254 1245 > Email: mark.lamb@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mark.lamb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Internet: www.hbm.com/ncode<http://www.hbm..com/ncode> > > > ________________________________ > Confidentiality Notice: This email may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it immediately and inform the sender that you have received this message in error. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
