How good are ZooKeeper and Etcd?

Question

Disclaimer: I'm quite new for the etcd project and ZooKeeper project.

I'm recently getting interested in the distributed open source products. I found they seems to require configuration(coordination?) systems such as ZooKeeper for Presto DB, Hive and Etcd for kubernetes and I think that understanding the role of etcd and ZooKeeper is the first step to understand the distributed systems.

But now, I feel like getting lost... I could not yet understand what is the good and unique points of the etcd and ZooKeeper. They look for me a well-distributed key-value storage or file systems. Here is the impression that I have for the products. I know the impressions don't reflect the feature of the products. but I don't know what is the remaining feature that I should know.

ZooKeeper: According to the overview page of ZooKeeper, it guarantees the following things.

• Sequential Consistency - Updates from a client will be applied in the order that they were sent.
• Atomicity - Updates either succeed or fail. No partial results.
• Single System Image - A client will see the same view of the service regardless of the server that it connects to.
• Reliability - Once an update has been applied, it will persist from that time forward until a client overwrites the update.
• Timeliness - The clients view of the system is guaranteed to be up-to-date within a certain time bound.

The sequential consistency and atomicity are the unique features which is not supported by most file systems but others are common among other file systems.

Etcd: According to the README of etcd. it focuses on

• Simple: curl'able user-facing API (HTTP+JSON)
• Secure: optional SSL client cert authentication
• Fast: benchmarked 1000s of writes/s per instance
• Reliable: properly distributed using Raft

Most of them seems common with Amazon S3 (S3 doesn't support such a fast access.)

I know those products are very good ones because most of the distributed open source products depend on them. but what is the key, unique feature that the distributed open source product choose them?

Legislatorial

I suggest you also post this to the mailing list (I assume there is one). – Blackdamp

Answer 1

I think you're confusing the file-system-like interface with an actual file system. The systems you are mentioning are well suited for cluster coordination, in particular ZooKeeper. What they are not designed for is storing large amounts of data like a file system would. You should think of them more as suited for coordinating a file system. That is, one could imagine a file system storing paths to files in a consistent store like ZooKeeper or etcd, but not the files themselves. That they expose a file system-like interface does not correlate to any ability to store files. Indeed, these systems are designed to store small amounts of data that can be held in memory. By using a consistent store like ZooKeeper for storing file information in a distributed file system, the file system would ensure that clients see changes in the file system in sequential order.

ZooKeeper is really a set of primitives with which distributed systems can be coordinated. Particularly relevant to coordinating distributed systems with ZooKeeper are its session events (watches) which allow clients to listen for changes to the cluster state. Distributed systems typically use watches in ZooKeeper for things like locks, and the strong consistency guarantees of ZooKeeper make it perfectly suitable for that use case.

If you want a good idea of what systems like ZooKeeper and etcd are used for, you should check out the Apache Curator recipes. Atomix also implements similar types of APIs for coordinating distributed systems on top of a consensus algorithm. All of these tools are demonstrative of typical use cases for consensus-based distributed systems.

What's important to note is that these types of systems are built on top of consensus algorithms and usually store state in memory. They're suitable for operations that involve a small amount of data but require a high level of consistency, and that's why they're frequently used for things like distributed locking, configuration management, and group membership.

Update