Thank you a lot for the fast replies!
Flux sounds good, we will have a deeper look into how we could apply it.

Regards,
Irina

On 6 November 2015 at 10:33, Crina Arsenie <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thank you all for your inputs. @santosh I think we will continue using
> Storm for the moment. And as I saw, Samza does almost the same but in a
> different way and from their site is even written that "Samza is pretty
> immature. " @saiprasad maybe we can try using groovy scripts yes!
>
> Thanks again,
> Crina
>
>
> 2015-11-05 17:39 GMT+01:00 saiprasad mishra <[email protected]>:
>
>> You can explore creating a new groovy script for transformation every
>> time and push it to a predefined location in all worker nodes and use it in
>> a bolt to execute it based on some tuple value field. Spring can help
>> execute the groovy script as bean too.
>>
>> Regards
>> Sai
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Santosh Pingale <[email protected]
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Apache Samza fits the requirements. You can give it a shot. But whatever
>>> Nathan said can still cause a big toll on overall performance but that
>>> depends on your DAG.
>>> On Nov 5, 2015 6:25 PM, "Nathan Leung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Generally yes, the best case for output collector is passing a
>>>> reference through some queues.  However, it's harder to reason about the
>>>> performance of a larger topology, and (assuming you use reliable messaging)
>>>> your entire topology can be held up by one poorly performing bolt.
>>>> On Nov 5, 2015 7:31 AM, "Crina Arsenie" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm interested in this topic also. Thank you for your answer.
>>>>> I didn't knew about Flux, maybe it could do the job for my case, i'll
>>>>> take a lot at it.
>>>>> I have a also question about performance, I assume that passing
>>>>> through the output collector is faster than Kaka, what do you think ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Crina
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-11-05 12:36 GMT+01:00 Nathan Leung <[email protected]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not possible to combine several topologies into one, but it
>>>>>> should be possible to write different tuple sinks such that you can
>>>>>> configure each bolt to write to either the output collector or Kafka. 
>>>>>> Then
>>>>>> it's just a matter of wiring and configuring your bolts differently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can use something like flux (
>>>>>> http://storm.apache.org/documentation/flux.html) to change how your
>>>>>> bolts are wired without having to rebuild your jar file every time.
>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2015 4:17 AM, "Irina Alles" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are currently studying if storm would be appropriate as a part of
>>>>>>> our monitoring system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are measuring sensor data, we need to apply different
>>>>>>> transformation steps and store it somewhere or send it further.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems to be a basic use case for storm so far, let’s call this
>>>>>>> setup topology A.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We would like to be able to add measured sensors and their
>>>>>>> transformation steps (topology B) dynamically without requiring any 
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>> downtime. These dynamic additions could happen frequently. It will 
>>>>>>> happen
>>>>>>> that bolts of topology B will require the output of certain bolts in A
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a best practice to manage this in storm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After a certain runtime of the system we will have to manage several
>>>>>>> topologies and we need to assure the communication between them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We thought about using Kafka for the communication between
>>>>>>> topologies, but with the growing number of topologies this might not be 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> best approach I suppose (‘best’ means in this case: easy to handle,
>>>>>>> avoiding message overhead).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe it would be better to group some topologies to create a
>>>>>>> greater one? How would one do this in storm (I’ve read about the swap
>>>>>>> feature, but it doesn’t seem to be available yet)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a better approach?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Irina
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to