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

Switch to Plain View
Flume, mail # dev - Re: [jira] [Created] (FLUME-1479) Multiple Sinks can connect to single Channel


+
Wang, Yongkun | Yongkun |... 2012-08-10, 05:07
+
Denny Ye 2012-08-10, 05:29
+
Wang, Yongkun | Yongkun |... 2012-08-10, 05:48
+
Denny Ye 2012-08-10, 06:09
+
Wang, Yongkun | Yongkun |... 2012-08-10, 06:25
+
Denny Ye 2012-08-10, 06:58
+
Wang, Yongkun | Yongkun |... 2012-08-10, 07:53
+
Juhani Connolly 2012-08-10, 09:07
+
Wang, Yongkun | Yongkun |... 2012-08-11, 04:30
+
Mike Percy 2012-08-13, 00:17
+
Wang, Yongkun | Yongkun |... 2012-08-15, 03:03
Copy link to this message
-
Re: [jira] [Created] (FLUME-1479) Multiple Sinks can connect to single Channel
Mike Percy 2012-08-15, 03:52
Yongkun Wang,
You're welcome! Very happy to hear your thoughts.

Regards,
Mike

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Wang, Yongkun | Yongkun | BDD <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks Mike.
>
> This is really a nice reply based on the thorough understanding of my
> proposal.
>
> I agree that it might be a potential design change. So I will carefully
> evaluate it before submitting it to you guys to make the decision.
>
> Cheers,
> Yongkun Wang
>
> On 12/08/13 9:17, "Mike Percy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >Due to design decisions made very early on in Flume NG - specifically the
> >fact that Sink only has a simple process() method - I don't see a good way
> >to get multiple sinks pulling from the same channel in a way that is
> >backwards-compatible with the current implementation.
> >
> >Probably the "right" way to support this would be to have an interface
> >where the SinkRunner (or something outside of each Sink) is in control of
> >the transaction, and then it can easily send events to each sink serially
> >or in parallel within a single transaction. I think that is basically what
> >you are describing. If you look at SourceRunner and SourceProcessor you
> >will see similar ideas to what you are describing but they are only
> >implemented at the Source->Channel level. The current SinkProcessor is not
> >an analog of SourceProcessor, but if it was then I think that's where this
> >functionality might fit. However what happens when you do that is you have
> >to handle a ton of failure cases and threading models in a very general
> >way, which might be tough to get right for all use cases. I'm not 100%
> >sure, but I think that's why this was not pursued at the time.
> >
> >To me, this seems like a potential design change (it would have to be very
> >carefully thought out) to consider for a future major Flume code line
> >(maybe a Flume 2.x).
> >
> >By the way, if one is trying to get maximum throughput, then duplicating
> >events onto multiple channels, and having different threads running the
> >sinks (the current design) will be faster and more resilient in general
> >than a single thread and a single channel writing to multiple
> >sinks/destinations. The multiple-channel design pattern will allow
> >periodic
> >downtimes or delays on a single sink to not affect the others, assuming
> >the
> >channel sizes are large enough for buffering during downtime and assuming
> >that each sink is fast enough to recover from temporary delays. Without a
> >dedicated buffer per destination, one is at the mercy of the slowest sink
> >at every stage in the transaction.
> >
> >One last thing worth noting is that the current channels are all well
> >ordered. This means that Flume currently provides a weak ordering
> >guarantee
> >(across a single hop). That is a helpful property in the context of
> >testing
> >and validation, as well as is what many people expect if they are storing
> >logs on a single hop. I hope we don't backpedal on that weak ordering
> >guarantee without a really good reason.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Mike
> >
> >On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:30 PM, Wang, Yongkun | Yongkun | BDD <
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jhhani,
> >>
> >> Yes, we can use two (or several) channels to fan out data to different
> >> sinks. Then we will have two channels with same data, which may not be
> >>an
> >> optimized solution. So I want to use just ONE channel, creating a
> >> processor to pull the data once from the channel, then distributing to
> >> different sinks.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Yongkun Wang
> >>
> >> On 12/08/10 18:07, "Juhani Connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi Yongkun,
> >> >
> >> >I'm curious why you need to pull the data twice from the sink? Do you
> >> >need all sinks to have read the same amount of data? Normally for the
> >> >case of splitting data into batch and analytics, we will send data from
> >> >the source to two separate channels and have the sinks read from