What really would resolve some of these issues is backpressure on CPU -- ie. let Nifi throttle itself down to not choke the machine until it dies if constrained on CPU. Easier said than done unfortunately.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:23 PM James Srinivasan <[email protected]> wrote: > In our case, backpressure applied all the way up to the TCP network > source which meant we lost data. AIUI, current load balancing is round > robin (and two other options prob not relevant). Would actual load > balancing (e.g. send to node with lowest OS load, or number of active > threads) be a reasonable request? > > On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 20:51, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is generally workable (heterogenous node capabilities) in NiFi > clustering. But you do want to leverage back-pressure and load balanced > connections so that faster nodes will have an opportunity to take on the > workload for slower nodes. > > > > Thanks > > > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:48 PM James Srinivasan < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Yes, we hit this with the new load balanced queues (which, to be fair, > we also had with remote process groups previously). Two "old" nodes got > saturated and their queues filled while three "new" nodes were fine. > >> > >> My "solution" was to move everything to new hardware which we had > inbound anyway. > >> > >> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019, 20:40 Jon Logan, <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> You may run into issues with different processing power, as some > machines may be overwhelmed in order to saturate other machines. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 3:34 PM Mark Payne <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Chad, > >>>> > >>>> This should not be a problem, given that all nodes have enough > storage available to handle the influx of data. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> -Mark > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Mar 6, 2019, at 1:44 PM, Chad Woodhead <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > Are there any negative effects of having filesystem mounts > (dedicated mounts for each repo) used by the different NiFi repositories > differ in size on NiFi nodes within the same cluster? For instance, if some > nodes have a content_repo mount of 130 GB and other nodes have a > content_repo mount of 125 GB, could that cause any problems or cause one > node to be used more since it has more space? What about if the difference > was larger, by say a 100 GB difference? > >>>> > > >>>> > Trying to repurpose old nodes and add them as NiFi nodes, but their > mount sizes are different than my current cluster’s nodes and I’ve noticed > I can’t set the max size limit to use of a particular mount for a repo. > >>>> > > >>>> > -Chad > >>>> >
