Hi Prasad I sent this off list but it may have gotten stuck in your email filters.
I noticed you've been asking a lot of questions about Storm on the mailing list. Welcome to the Storm family! It's great to have you involved and asking questions. However a lot of the questions you've been asking have been confusingly written, often with poor grammar and punctuation. It's also not always clear what you're asking. This makes it hard for people to answer, and most people will just give up if it's too hard to understand what's being asked. To get more answers to your questions, you're going to need to work on making your questions more clear. This site http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html is a great guide on asking technical questions and helping you get the answers you're looking for. In particular, some of your questions may be better asked on StackOverflow than the Storm mailing list, at least in the first instance. Thanks, Daniel. On Thu, 21 May 2015 at 7:15 pm prasad ch <[email protected]> wrote: > HI, > > > What are the possible scenarios for the following! > > Storm topology process at least once? even if any tuple fails who will > replay tuple ? > How trident process exactly once ? even if any tuple fail who will replay? > need to write any code by developer. > > > While running storm application in cluster mode i can able to execute my > topology in required number of workers. but in trident topology always > single worker is effected even i used setnumWorkers() method on config > object. > > Here My scenario in need to read list of files fastly and process tuples > exactly once & applying some conditions on tuple ,condition satisfied > tuples need to write some where. > > which topology is better trident or normal storm. while when i go with > trident ,trident state is mandatory ? > even when designed application using ITridentSpout it emit batches but > when i define parallelismHint to it ,it is not effected ? > > > > Please help me ! no body cant giving any response ! > > > I hope You will give your valuable response! > > > > Thanks & Regard's > > > Prasad.ch > > > > > >
