[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-1002?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13217788#comment-13217788
]
Juhani Connolly commented on FLUME-1002:
----------------------------------------
I could've sworn I documented this as a requirement, but I may missed it when I
rewrote the implementation.
As far as I'm concerned I think that having identical priorities is a bad idea
as it makes failover order unpredictable, and that things are fine as they are.
However it should be documented(sorry I must have missed that)
> FailoverSinkProcessor replaces sinks with same priority
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLUME-1002
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLUME-1002
> Project: Flume
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Sinks+Sources
> Affects Versions: v1.1.0
> Environment: RHEL 6.2 64-bit
> Reporter: Will McQueen
> Fix For: v1.1.0
>
>
> In FailoverSinkProcessor, sinks are indexed in a SortedMap according to their
> priority. This means that specifying 2 failover sinks with the same priority
> will actually cause only one of them to be included in the map since the last
> sink replaces all previous sinks of the same priority ("last one wins"). For
> example:
> a1.sinkgroups.g1.sinks = k1 k2 k3 k4
> a1.sinkgroups.g1.processor.type = failover
> a1.sinkgroups.g1.processor.priority.k1 = 5
> a1.sinkgroups.g1.processor.priority.k2 = 10
> a1.sinkgroups.g1.processor.priority.k3 = 10
> a1.sinkgroups.g1.processor.priority.k4 = 15
> Here, the intent of the user is to configure sinks k2 and k3 to have equal
> priority, but in fact only 1 of these sinks will be used... so the user is
> left with a total of 3 working failover sinks instead of 4.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
