Mailing-List: contact user-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@hbase.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy includes SPF record at
 spf.trusted-forwarder.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJHcOe0AHxtxuePDiBxaVVcTp5MAHwgRWZo-_uxgJdLjVvh1YQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAJHcOe0M626iSjXzUBBwdmsfoYJH-MOby_GuNLkrAdwPCUob+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <1393698B-D899-4AE3-9888-A3837E400726@gmail.com>
 <CAJHcOe2SiDsd4cQka6aBOBcRSjM47P5B0Q8hB0UjtGySzFbkwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHcOe0cixX-p=uOgmn6ZYDRHPjrSQ6eeMdQTFNBdW2Jebu=Kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPQV63XaLZhO+16jikB70+90n8JrxWz56qQHZ_VsHj1YHWVqwQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJHcOe0AHxtxuePDiBxaVVcTp5MAHwgRWZo-_uxgJdLjVvh1YQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:00:47 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAPQV63VzUXbZ-xfFgTrRfii4c6xtNvUQceW6uH5bKNpTTr4FsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Geographically distant client
To: user <user@hbase.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1da062ac14104f623d5c3

--001a11c1da062ac14104f623d5c3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Efficient? Probably not ;) But it's like if you are connecting your client
app to a webserver local to the cluster and then the webserver connects to
the cluster.

I don't like the idea of having the cluster accessible from the outsite and
usuall prefer to have kind of a gateway, but that's your call.

You efficiency will mainly depend on the RPC calls you are doing. If you
send or retreive big bunch of data at a time should not be that bad. But if
you get cells one by one and send edits one by one, might not be very good.

JM


2014-04-03 9:57 GMT-04:00 Manthosh Kumar T <manthosh@gmail.com>:

> Is that a good idea even if I don't have a VPN??. Will it be efficient in a
> fairly good connection?
>
>
> On 3 April 2014 19:25, Jean-Marc Spaggiari <jean-marc@spaggiari.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I will say, remote client connecting to a cluster is fine. But a cluster
> > spread over multiple physical sites is not at all a good idea.
> >
> >
> > 2014-04-03 9:28 GMT-04:00 Manthosh Kumar T <manthosh@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > Pardon me if I miss anything, like any network issues
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3 April 2014 18:57, Manthosh Kumar T <manthosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I mean directly interacting with the remote zookeeper. Say I'm able
> to
> > > > access the zk server and hbase server externally.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3 April 2014 18:54, Ted Yu <yuzhihong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Regions hosted by the server may be moved to other servers.
> > > >>
> > > >> Can you clarify what you meant by directly writing to the server ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks
> > > >>
> > > >> On Apr 3, 2014, at 5:59 AM, Manthosh Kumar T <manthosh@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi All,
> > > >> >         I have around 20-30 geographically distant clients that
> need
> > > to
> > > >> > write data to a centralized HBase server. I have dedicated VPN for
> > the
> > > >> > communication and hence bandwidth won't be a issue. is it a good
> > idea
> > > to
> > > >> > make the clients directly send data to the centralized server?.
> Or a
> > > >> > geographically distributed Hadoop cluster is more efficient for
> this
> > > >> > scenario? Has anybody come across such use case?. Need suggestions
> > on
> > > >> the
> > > >> > viability and efficiency of the setup to follow
> > > >> >
> > > >> > --
> > > >> > Cheers,
> > > >> > Manthosh Kumar. T
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Manthosh Kumar. T
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Manthosh Kumar. T
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Manthosh Kumar. T
>

--001a11c1da062ac14104f623d5c3--