hbase-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ishan Chhabra <ichha...@rocketfuel.com>
Subject Re: Setting up NxN replication
Date Fri, 08 Nov 2013 22:42:06 GMT
Ted:
Yes. It is the same table that is being written to from all locations. A
single row could be updated from multiple locations, but our schema is
designed in a manner that writes will be independent and not clobber each
other.


On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ishan:
> In your use case, the same table is written to in 10 clusters at roughly
> the same time ?
>
> Please clarify.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Ishan Chhabra <ichhabra@rocketfuel.com
> >wrote:
>
> > @Demai,
> > We actually have 10 clusters in different locations.
> > The replication scope is not an issue for me since I have only one column
> > family and we want it replicated to each location.
> > Can you elaborate more on why a replication setup of more than 3-4
> clusters
> > would be a headache in your opinion?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Ishan Chhabra <ichhabra@rocketfuel.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > @Demai,
> > > Writes from B should also go to A and C. So, if I were to continue on
> > your
> > > suggestion, I would setup A-B master master and B-C master-master,
> which
> > is
> > > what I was proposing in the 2nd approach (MST based).
> > >
> > > @Vladimir
> > > That is classified. :P
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Vladimir Rodionov <
> > vladrodionov@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > >> *I want to setup NxN replication i.e. N clusters each replicating to
> > each
> > >> other. N is expected to be around 10.*
> > >>
> > >> Preparing to thermonuclear war?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ishan Chhabra <
> ichhabra@rocketfuel.com
> > >> >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I want to setup NxN replication i.e. N clusters each replicating to
> > each
> > >> > other. N is expected to be around 10.
> > >> >
> > >> > On doing some research, I realize it is possible after HBASE-7709
> fix,
> > >> but
> > >> > it would lead to much more data flowing in the system. eg.
> > >> >
> > >> > Lets say we have 3 clusters: A,B and C.
> > >> > A new write to A will go to B and then C, and also go to C directly
> > via
> > >> the
> > >> > direct path. This leads to unnecessary network usage and writes to
> WAL
> > >> of
> > >> > B, that should be avoided. Now imagine this with 10 clusters, it
> won’t
> > >> > scale.
> > >> >
> > >> > One option is to create a minimum spanning tree joining all the
> > clusters
> > >> > and make nodes replicate to their immediate peers in a master-master
> > >> > fashion. This is much better than NxN mesh, but still has extra
> > network
> > >> and
> > >> > WAL usage. It also suffers from a failure scenarios where the a
> single
> > >> > cluster going down will pause replication to clusters downstream.
> > >> >
> > >> > What I really want is that the ReplicationSource should only forward
> > >> > WALEdits with cluster-id same as the local cluster-id. This seems
> > like a
> > >> > straight forward patch to put in.
> > >> >
> > >> > Any thoughts on the suggested approach or alternatives?
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > *Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc.
> >
>



-- 
*Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message