metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Opinionated Data Flows
Date Thu, 06 Oct 2016 17:21:06 GMT
Personally, I was seeing METRON-477 as one of those "useful bits of
functionality" that would be orchestrated by Stellar 2.0.  But I can also
see your viewpoint on how it could also be part of the orchestration.  Very
interesting.



On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Zeolla@GMail.com <zeolla@gmail.com> wrote:

> One of those users gives this a +1.  This also appears related to
> METRON-477
> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-477>, except that 477 is
> more
> focused on data flow once it hits disk and this is during ingest/stream
> processing.  At the end of the day, not that different IMO.  Would love to
> see it all managed via Stellar/zookeeper.
>
> Jon
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:00 PM Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
> In reality, the current "engine" is Storm + Kafka + HBase.  Each of these
> could be independently swapped out once Metron is just a DSL with multiple
> underlying engines.
>
> Ok, I'll stop.
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
> > Chasing this bad idea down even further leads me to something even
> > crazier.
> >
> > Stellar 1.0 can only operate within a single topology and in most cases
> > only on a single message.  Stellar 2.0 could be the mechanism that allows
> > users to define their own data flows and what "useful bits of Metron
> > functionality" get plugged-in.
> >
> > Once, you have a DSL that allows users to define what they want Metron to
> > do, then the underlying implementation mechanism (which is currently
> Storm)
> > can also be swapped-out.  If we have an even faster Storm implementation,
> > then we swap in the Storm NG engine.  Maybe we want Metron to also run in
> > Flink, then we just swap-in a Flink engine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I totally "bird dogged the previous thread" as Casey likes to call it.
> :)
> >>  I am extracting this thought into a separate thread before I start
> >> throwing out even more, crazier ideas.
> >>
> >> In general, Metron is very opinionated about data flows right now.  We
> >>> have Parser topologies that feed an Enrichment topology, which then
> feeds
> >>> an Indexing topology.  We have useful bits of functionality (think
> Stellar
> >>> transforms, Geo enrichment, etc) that are closely coupled with these
> >>> topologies (aka data flows).
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>> When a user wants to parse heterogenous data from a single topic,
> that's
> >>> not easy.  When a user wants enriched output to land in unique topics
> by
> >>> sensor type, well, that's also not easy.    When a user wanted to skip
> >>> enrichment of data sources, we actually re-architected the data flow to
> add
> >>> the Indexing topology.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>> In an ideal world, a user should be responsible for defining the data
> >>> flow, not Metron.  Metron should provide the "useful bits of
> functionality"
> >>> that a user can "plugin" wherever they like.  Metron itself should not
> care
> >>> how the data is moving or what step in the process it is at.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>
>
> --
>
> Jon
>



-- 
Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message