Ishan: In your use case, the same table is written to in 10 clusters at roughly the same time ?
Please clarify. On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Ishan Chhabra <[email protected]>wrote: > @Demai, > We actually have 10 clusters in different locations. > The replication scope is not an issue for me since I have only one column > family and we want it replicated to each location. > Can you elaborate more on why a replication setup of more than 3-4 clusters > would be a headache in your opinion? > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Ishan Chhabra <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > @Demai, > > Writes from B should also go to A and C. So, if I were to continue on > your > > suggestion, I would setup A-B master master and B-C master-master, which > is > > what I was proposing in the 2nd approach (MST based). > > > > @Vladimir > > That is classified. :P > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > >> *I want to setup NxN replication i.e. N clusters each replicating to > each > >> other. N is expected to be around 10.* > >> > >> Preparing to thermonuclear war? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ishan Chhabra <[email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > >> > I want to setup NxN replication i.e. N clusters each replicating to > each > >> > other. N is expected to be around 10. > >> > > >> > On doing some research, I realize it is possible after HBASE-7709 fix, > >> but > >> > it would lead to much more data flowing in the system. eg. > >> > > >> > Lets say we have 3 clusters: A,B and C. > >> > A new write to A will go to B and then C, and also go to C directly > via > >> the > >> > direct path. This leads to unnecessary network usage and writes to WAL > >> of > >> > B, that should be avoided. Now imagine this with 10 clusters, it won’t > >> > scale. > >> > > >> > One option is to create a minimum spanning tree joining all the > clusters > >> > and make nodes replicate to their immediate peers in a master-master > >> > fashion. This is much better than NxN mesh, but still has extra > network > >> and > >> > WAL usage. It also suffers from a failure scenarios where the a single > >> > cluster going down will pause replication to clusters downstream. > >> > > >> > What I really want is that the ReplicationSource should only forward > >> > WALEdits with cluster-id same as the local cluster-id. This seems > like a > >> > straight forward patch to put in. > >> > > >> > Any thoughts on the suggested approach or alternatives? > >> > > >> > -- > >> > *Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc. > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > *Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc. > > > > > > -- > *Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc. >
