[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1657?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16546860#comment-16546860
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on METRON-1657:
----------------------------------------
Github user justinleet commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1099
@ottobackwards I definitely think it's something we should consider adding
and that's worthwhile. I feel it's more of a follow-on task, and the follow-on
is to allow for optionally direct routing. i.e. this PR generalizes what's
already there in the ParserBolt and a follow-on is to provide that option to do
direct routing in the aggregate case.
Do you feel that we need to provide that option in this PR, or is it fine
to be left as a follow-on?
> Parser aggregation in storm
> ---------------------------
>
> Key: METRON-1657
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1657
> Project: Metron
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Justin Leet
> Assignee: Justin Leet
> Priority: Major
>
> Currently our parsing solution requires one storm topology per sensor. It has
> been complained that this may be wasteful of resources and that, rather than
> one storm topology per sensor, it would be advantageous to have multiple
> sensors in the same topology. The benefit to this is that it would require
> fewer storm slots.
> The issue with this is that whenever we've aggregated functionality like this
> before, we've run into issues appropriately being able to scale storm (e.g.
> batch vs random access indexing in the same topology). The main point in
> addressing this is to recommend that parsers with similar velocities and
> complexity are grouped together.
> Particularly for a first cut, leave the configuration mostly as-is, while
> allowing for comma separated lists of sensors in start_parser_topology.sh
> (e.g. bro,yaf creates a aggregated parser consisting of those two).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
