Out of curiosity, what is the use case vs using the built in load balancing?
From: Rahul Ravindran [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Flume hops behind HAProxy
It would be round robin but not sticky sessions( so each request could Goto any random flume hop)
Sent from my phone.Excuse the terseness.
On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:33 PM, Brock Noland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assume it would be connection based round robin? Might work just
> fine, but probably best to the use built-in support.
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Rahul Ravindran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Resending given I sent it during off-hours.
>> From: Rahul Ravindran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:52 PM
>> Subject: Flume hops behind HAProxy
>> Before I try it, I wanted to check if there were any known issues
>> with this. We will have multiple flume agents sending an Avro stream
>> each to a smaller set of intermediate flume hops. Are there any
>> issues/concerns around having the flume agents send their streams to
>> an HAProxy which will round robin between the different flume hops.
>> Any issue around the transaction mechanism with this setup?
>> I know that there is a selector mechanism in Flume to do this, but
>> our operations extensively use HAProxy, and are most familiar with it.
> Apache MRUnit - Unit testing MapReduce -