nifi-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Payne <marka...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: DistributedMapCache
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2016 15:12:29 GMT
Yari,

I have implemented a couple of additional implementations of DistributedMapCacheClient - one
for
MySQL and one for Memcached. However, I'd not yet gotten them into Apache, as they need some
cleanup
and some refactoring probably. Eventually I need to get that migrated over.

The design of DetectDuplicate, though, makes this work very well. The intent is that you can
use DistributeLoad
pointing to Memcached first. If it detects a duplicate, you route that as appropriate. If
it routes to 'non-duplicate'
then you would send it to a second DistributeLoad processor that points to MySQL. This way,
if you have a non-duplicate,
it will automatically be added to Memcached as well as MySQL (because the first DetectDuplicate
will notice that it's not
in Memcached and add it, and the second one will either detect that it's already in MySQL
or detect that it's not and add
it). So this gives you the caching layer on top of the persistence layer.

Thanks
-Mark



> On Nov 7, 2016, at 5:06 AM, Yari Marchetti <yari.marchetti@buongiorno.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Koji,
> thanks for the explanation, that's very clear now; as you pointed out I got 
> tricked by the "distributed" :)
> 
> Regarding the idea to implement a ZK-driven failover, I think it makes sense
> to improve the overall stability/manageability of the platform and also to
> not implement a cache replication. It would definitely be an overkill.
> 
> But, I was also thinking that for use cases where you need to be absolutely 
> sure no duplicates are propagated (I've already several similar use cases), 
> it would also make senso to create some sort of "DurableMapCacheServer" 
> using some sort of NoSQL/SQL backend. 
> As I said, you could implement it yourself using standard processors
> but I found that it's something that could be very very useful to have "off the
> shelf".
> 
> In my view both of them make sense: one fast with weak guarantee, when 
> duplicates may be acceptable, and one slower and durable with strong 
> guarantee. What do you think?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yari
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 November 2016 at 07:02, Koji Kawamura <ijokarumawak@gmail.com <mailto:ijokarumawak@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> Hi Yari,
> 
> Thanks for the great question. I looked at the
> DistributedMapCacheClient/Server code briefly, but there's no high
> availability support with NiFi cluster. As you figured it out, we need
> to point one of nodes IP address, in order to share the same Cache
> storage among nodes within the same cluster, and if the node goes
> down, the client processors stop working until the node recovers or
> client service configuration is updated.
> 
> Although it has 'Distributed' in its name, the cache storage itself is
> not distributed, it just supports multiple client nodes, and it does
> not implement any coordination logic that work nicely with NiFi
> cluster.
> 
> I think we might be able to use primary node to improve its availability.
> By adding option to DistributedCacheServer to run only on a primary
> node, and also, add option to client service to point a primary node
> (without specifying a specific ip address or hostname). Then let
> Zookeeper and NiFi cluster handles fail-over scenario.
> The whole cache entries will be invalidated when fail-over happens.
> So, things like DetectDuplicate won't work right after a fail-over.
> This idea only helps NiFi cluster and data flow recover automatically
> without human intervention.
> 
> We could implement cache replication between nodes as well to provide
> higher availability, or hashing to utilize resources on every nodes,
> but I think it's overkill for NiFi. If one needs such level of
> availability, then I'd recommend to use other NoSQL databases.
> 
> How do you think about that? I'd like to hear from others, too, to see
> if it's worth for trying.
> 
> Thanks,
> Koji
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Yari Marchetti
> <yari.marchetti@buongiorno.com <mailto:yari.marchetti@buongiorno.com>> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm running a 3 nodes cluster and I've been trying to implement a
> > deduplication workflow using the DetectDuplicate but, on my first try, I
> > noticed that there were always 3 messages marked as non-duplicates. After
> > some investigation I tracked down this issue to be related to a
> > configuration I did for DistributedMapCache server address which was set to
> > localhost: if instead I set it to the IP of one of the nodes than
> > everything's working as expected.
> >
> > My concern with this approach is of reliability: if that specific node goes
> > down, than the workflow will not work properly. I know I could implement it
> > using some other kind of storage but wanted to check first whether I got it
> > right and what's the suggested approach.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yari
> 


Mime
View raw message