Hi Lei,

Does 'balance strategy' means load balance strategy? Which strategy
are you using? I thought Prioritizers are applied on the destination
node after load balancing has transferred FlowFiles. Are those A, B
and C flow files generated on different nodes and sent to a single
node to merge them?

Thanks,
Koji

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 7:12 PM [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Seems it is because of the balance strategy that is used.
> The balance will not guarantee the the order.
>
> Thanks,
> Lei
>
> ________________________________
> [email protected]
>
>
> From: [email protected]
> Date: 2019-10-16 10:21
> To: dev; users
> CC: dev
> Subject: Re: Re: MergeRecord can not guarantee the ordering of the input 
> sequence?
> Hi Koji,
> Actually i have set all connections to FIFO and concurrency tasks to 1 for 
> all processors.
> Before and after the MergeRecord, I add a LogAttribute to debug.
>
> Before MergeRecord,the order in logfile is A,B,C in three flowfile
> After  MergeRecord, the order becomes {A,C,B} in one flowfile
> This is nondeterministic.
>
> I think I should look up the MergeRecord code and do further debug.
>
> Thanks,
> Lei
>
>
>
>
> [email protected]
> From: Koji Kawamura
> Date: 2019-10-16 09:46
> To: users
> CC: dev
> Subject: Re: MergeRecord can not guarantee the ordering of the input sequence?
> Hi Lei,
> How about setting FIFO prioritizer at all the preceding connections
> before the MergeRecord?
> Without setting any prioritizer, FlowFile ordering is nondeterministic.
> Thanks,
> Koji
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 8:56 PM [email protected]
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If  FlowFile A, B, C enter the MergeRecord sequentially, the output should 
> > be one FlowFile {A, B, C}
> > However, when testing with  large data volume, sometimes the output order 
> > will be not the same as they enter. And this result is nondeterministic
> >
> > This really confuses me a lot.
> > Anybody has any insight on this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lei
> >
> > ________________________________
> > [email protected]

Reply via email to