nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: PostHTTP Penalize file on HTTP 5xx response
Date Thu, 01 Sep 2016 03:28:25 GMT
It will not be blocked by penalized things.  The queues are setup to
basically put those aside and move on to other things until their
penalty period passes. If you're seeing different behavior please
advise.

Thanks
Joe

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:11 PM, McDermott, Chris Kevin (MSDU -
STaTS/StorefrontRemote) <chris.mcdermott@hpe.com> wrote:
> Thanks, everyone for the feedback. I’ll file a JIRA for this and see if I can find
some time to address it.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts on my related question?
>
> (with spelling and grammar corrections:)
>
> ➢ If a penalized file is routed to a funnel that’s s connect to a processor via a
connection with the OldestFlowFileFirst  prioritizer will the consumption of files from that
connection be blocked until penalization period is over?
>
>
>
> Chris McDermott
>
> Remote Business Analytics
> STaTS/StoreFront Remote
> HPE Storage
> Hewlett Packard Enterprise
> Mobile: +1 978-697-5315
>
>
>
> On 8/31/16, 11:00 PM, "Matt Burgess" <mattyb149@apache.org> wrote:
>
>     Adam,
>
>     A PenalizeFlowFile processor could be pretty useful, please feel free
>     to file a New Feature Jira for this if you like.
>
>     In the meantime you could use ExecuteScript (with Groovy for this
>     example) and the following:
>
>     def flowFile = session.get()
>     if(!flowFile) return
>     flowFile = session.penalize(flowFile)
>     session.transfer(flowFile, REL_SUCCESS)
>
>     In this case the "success" relationship is awkward, it means you
>     successfully penalized the flow file. But then you can route it
>     back/forward to the appropriate processor. If you create a template
>     from this single processor, then dragging the template onto the canvas
>     is somewhat equivalent to dragging a "PenalizeFlowFile" processor onto
>     the canvas (meaning I suggest the template is named PenalizeFlowFile).
>
>     Regards,
>     Matt
>
>     On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Adam Taft <adam@adamtaft.com> wrote:
>     > In the wild west of HTTP response codes, a 500 Server Error could mean
>     > practically anything.  In my experience, you can't infer any semantic
>     > meaning for what a 500 status code could mean, unless you're very familiar
>     > with the server application.
>     >
>     > I'd even go so far as to suggest, if a modification is made to PostHTTP,
>     > that all non-200 response codes should be penalized.  The dataflow manager
>     > can always adjust the penalization timeout towards zero if a processing
>     > delay is not warranted.
>     >
>     > Unrelated, but this also reminds me, we really need a PenalizeFlowFile
>     > processor, which would allow a dataflow manager to penalize a flowfile
>     > anywhere that is deemed necessary, even if other processors haven't done so
>     > (have routed to success).
>     >
>     >
>     > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:54 PM, Andrew Grande <aperepel@gmail.com> wrote:
>     >
>     >> Wasn't HTTP 400 Bad Request meant for that? 500 only means the server
>     >> failed, not necessarily due to user input.
>     >>
>     >> Andrew
>     >>
>     >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 10:16 AM Mark Payne <markap14@hotmail.com> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> > Hey Chris,
>     >> >
>     >> > I think it is reasonable to penalize when we receive a 500 response.
500
>     >> > means Internal Server Error, and it is
>     >> > very reasonable to believe that the Internal Server Error occurred
due to
>     >> > the specific input (i.e., that it may not
>     >> > always occur with different input). So penalizing the FlowFile so that
it
>     >> > can be retried after a little bit is reasonable
>     >> > IMO.
>     >> >
>     >> > When using the prioritizers, any FlowFile that is penalized will not
hold
>     >> > up other FlowFiles. They are always at the
>     >> > bottom of the queue until the penalization expires.
>     >> >
>     >> > Thanks
>     >> > -Mark
>     >> >
>     >> >
>     >> > > On Aug 31, 2016, at 10:06 AM, McDermott, Chris Kevin (MSDU -
>     >> > STaTS/StorefrontRemote) <chris.mcdermott@hpe.com> wrote:
>     >> > >
>     >> > > I wanted to ask if it would be at all sane to have the PostHTTP
>     >> > processor penalize a flowfile on 5xx response.  5xx indicates that
the
>     >> > request may be good but it cannot be handle by the server Currently
it
>     >> > seems the processor routes files eliciting this response to the failure
>     >> > output but does not penalize them.  What do we think of adding such
>     >> > penalization?
>     >> > >
>     >> > > On a related note.  If a file penalized file is routed to a funnel
that
>     >> > is connect to a processor via a connection with the OldestFlowFileFirst
>     >> > prioritizer will the consumption of files from that connection be blocked
>     >> > until penalization period is over?
>     >> > >
>     >> > > What I am trying to accomplish is this: I am using PostHTTP to
send
>     >> > files to web service that is throttling incoming data by returning
a 500
>     >> > response.  When that happens I want to slow down files being to that
that
>     >> > service.
>     >> > >
>     >> > > Thanks,
>     >> > >
>     >> > > Chris McDermott.
>     >> > >
>     >> > > Remote Business Analytics
>     >> > > STaTS/StoreFront Remote
>     >> > > HPE Storage
>     >> > > Hewlett Packard Enterprise
>     >> > > Mobile: +1 978-697-5315
>     >> > >
>     >> > >
>     >> >
>     >> >
>     >>
>
>

Mime
View raw message