Hmmm, given this I wonder penalizing the flow file is going to help. I’d like
maintain delivery order as best I can. If the web service is having
intermittent problems some files might be penalized but others, added to the
flow later, don’t get penalized and are sent out of order.
It might be better to yield the processor. That would solve the out of order
problem. However, since the URL supports the EL a single processor could be
talking to multiple web-services and yielding the processor could penalize
files that destined for web services that are not having problems. Maybe
that is OK though, since using a single processor for multiple web services is
probably a corner case and routing to multiple PostHTTP processors could be
used to handle such a case.
Chris McDermott
Remote Business Analytics
STaTS/StoreFront Remote
HPE Storage
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Mobile: +1 978-697-5315
On 8/31/16, 11:28 PM, "Joe Witt" <[email protected]> wrote:
It will not be blocked by penalized things. The queues are setup to
basically put those aside and move on to other things until their
penalty period passes. If you're seeing different behavior please
advise.
Thanks
Joe
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:11 PM, McDermott, Chris Kevin (MSDU -
STaTS/StorefrontRemote) <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks, everyone for the feedback. I’ll file a JIRA for this and see if I
can find some time to address it.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on my related question?
>
> (with spelling and grammar corrections:)
>
> ➢ If a penalized file is routed to a funnel that’s s connect to a
processor via a connection with the OldestFlowFileFirst prioritizer will the
consumption of files from that connection be blocked until penalization period
is over?
>
>
>
> Chris McDermott
>
> Remote Business Analytics
> STaTS/StoreFront Remote
> HPE Storage
> Hewlett Packard Enterprise
> Mobile: +1 978-697-5315
>
>
>
> On 8/31/16, 11:00 PM, "Matt Burgess" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Adam,
>
> A PenalizeFlowFile processor could be pretty useful, please feel free
> to file a New Feature Jira for this if you like.
>
> In the meantime you could use ExecuteScript (with Groovy for this
> example) and the following:
>
> def flowFile = session.get()
> if(!flowFile) return
> flowFile = session.penalize(flowFile)
> session.transfer(flowFile, REL_SUCCESS)
>
> In this case the "success" relationship is awkward, it means you
> successfully penalized the flow file. But then you can route it
> back/forward to the appropriate processor. If you create a template
> from this single processor, then dragging the template onto the canvas
> is somewhat equivalent to dragging a "PenalizeFlowFile" processor onto
> the canvas (meaning I suggest the template is named PenalizeFlowFile).
>
> Regards,
> Matt
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Adam Taft <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In the wild west of HTTP response codes, a 500 Server Error could
mean
> > practically anything. In my experience, you can't infer any
semantic
> > meaning for what a 500 status code could mean, unless you're very
familiar
> > with the server application.
> >
> > I'd even go so far as to suggest, if a modification is made to
PostHTTP,
> > that all non-200 response codes should be penalized. The dataflow
manager
> > can always adjust the penalization timeout towards zero if a
processing
> > delay is not warranted.
> >
> > Unrelated, but this also reminds me, we really need a
PenalizeFlowFile
> > processor, which would allow a dataflow manager to penalize a
flowfile
> > anywhere that is deemed necessary, even if other processors haven't
done so
> > (have routed to success).
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andrew Grande <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >
> >> Wasn't HTTP 400 Bad Request meant for that? 500 only means the
server
> >> failed, not necessarily due to user input.
> >>
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 10:16 AM Mark Payne <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hey Chris,
> >> >
> >> > I think it is reasonable to penalize when we receive a 500
response. 500
> >> > means Internal Server Error, and it is
> >> > very reasonable to believe that the Internal Server Error
occurred due to
> >> > the specific input (i.e., that it may not
> >> > always occur with different input). So penalizing the FlowFile
so that it
> >> > can be retried after a little bit is reasonable
> >> > IMO.
> >> >
> >> > When using the prioritizers, any FlowFile that is penalized will
not hold
> >> > up other FlowFiles. They are always at the
> >> > bottom of the queue until the penalization expires.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > -Mark
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > On Aug 31, 2016, at 10:06 AM, McDermott, Chris Kevin (MSDU -
> >> > STaTS/StorefrontRemote) <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > I wanted to ask if it would be at all sane to have the PostHTTP
> >> > processor penalize a flowfile on 5xx response. 5xx indicates
that the
> >> > request may be good but it cannot be handle by the server
Currently it
> >> > seems the processor routes files eliciting this response to the
failure
> >> > output but does not penalize them. What do we think of adding
such
> >> > penalization?
> >> > >
> >> > > On a related note. If a file penalized file is routed to a
funnel that
> >> > is connect to a processor via a connection with the
OldestFlowFileFirst
> >> > prioritizer will the consumption of files from that connection
be blocked
> >> > until penalization period is over?
> >> > >
> >> > > What I am trying to accomplish is this: I am using PostHTTP to
send
> >> > files to web service that is throttling incoming data by
returning a 500
> >> > response. When that happens I want to slow down files being to
that that
> >> > service.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > > Chris McDermott.
> >> > >
> >> > > Remote Business Analytics
> >> > > STaTS/StoreFront Remote
> >> > > HPE Storage
> >> > > Hewlett Packard Enterprise
> >> > > Mobile: +1 978-697-5315
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
>
