Francois,

Thanks for the explanation of the use case. I can certainly understand the 
motivation here.
I think a more appropriate mechanism, however, may be to create a PutUDP 
processor. We do
have a ListenUDP Processor but no Put as of yet. This could then be used to put 
to a multicast
address or a unicast address, either way.

Would that give you the capability you need?

Thanks
-Mark


> On Dec 4, 2015, at 11:15 AM, François St-Arnaud <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Mark,
> 
> We have a legacy system that uses a custom UDP-based messaging protocol to
> replicate data across database instances (in the 10 - 20 range). Depending
> on system deployment configurations, some instances may be connected to the
> network via unreliable low-bandwidth links. UDP multicast is used instead of
> point-to-point TCP to limit bandwidth usage, since, in most cases,  the
> majority of instances are connected via reliable high-bandwidth links. It's
> therefore more efficient, the argument goes, to send repeats for the
> occasional dropped packets for the minority of disadvantaged nodes instead
> of duplicating each and every packet for point-to-point TCP connection to
> each node.
> 
> Could a similar mechanism be implemented easily using NiFi?
> 
> -Francois
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Payne [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 10:20
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: UDP Site-to-Site
> 
> Francois,
> 
> Currently, the site-to-site protocol uses only TCP. Can you explain the use
> case that you had in mind so that we can understand how we might be able to
> improve this going forward, or perhaps provide suggestions of how else to
> accomplish your goals?
> 
> Thanks
> -Mark
> 
> 
>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 10:15 AM, François St-Arnaud <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> I understand that multicast UDP can be used for clustering. However, I 
>> was wondering if NiFi supports site-to-site communications using 
>> multicast UDP instead of point-to-point TCP ?
>> Thanks,
>> Francois
>> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to