Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Flume >> mail # user >> flume HA


This is not the recommended architecture, just some suggestions.

You could setup a channel which simply sends the avro event to two other machines. This would lead to double-entries in HDFS to be cleaned up later with an MR job. And if those two other machines fail to connect to the HDFS cluster, you're still out of luck. I don't believe slave replication is really part of the Flume scopeā€¦ at that point you may want to point from flume to a Kafka instance.

However, even in that case, as noted in the Jepsen blog-ette, there can be some edge cases:
http://aphyr.com/posts/293-call-me-maybe-kafka

The trade off here with guarantees is speed.. You can go all the way to writing into HDFS before completing the transaction, but you're going to see some slow down in the number of transactions you can handle, and you're going to lose efficiency.

Massive failure and HA are complex topics, there are always trade-offs. This includes HDFS. If you want to stall out your incoming data until it's been successfully written to two separate HDFS regions, you're going to have some latency.
On Oct 11, 2013, at 2:21 AM, Pascal Taddei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:

I would like to know what is the recommended architecture to guarantee that an event given to flume does arrive to HDFS....even in case of  massive failures, machine crash ... .