[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3026?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16566886#comment-16566886
 ] 

Tim Robertson edited comment on BEAM-3026 at 8/2/18 2:37 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for checking [~aalbatross] - things evolved from the original idea 
proposed on this jira. I would suggest mirroring as close as possible the 
`SolrIO`.  An overarching goal in Beam IO is to aim for consistency/familiarity 

If I remember correctly in ES, retrying is supported but not for `429` 
responses whereas in Solr we needed to handle a multitude of various 
exceptions. 


was (Author: timrobertson100):
Thanks for checking [~aalbatross] - things did evolved from the original idea 
proposed on this jira. I would suggest mirroring as close as possible the 
`SolrIO`.  An overarching goal in Beam IO is to aim for consistency/familiarity 

If I remember correctly in ES, retrying is supported but not for `429` 
responses whereas in Solr we needed to handle a multitude of various 
exceptions. 

> Improve retrying in ElasticSearch client
> ----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: BEAM-3026
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-3026
>             Project: Beam
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: io-java-elasticsearch
>            Reporter: Tim Robertson
>            Assignee: Ravi Pathak
>            Priority: Major
>
> Currently an overloaded ES server will result in clients failing fast.
> I suggest implementing backoff pauses.  Perhaps something like this:
> {code}
>     ElasticsearchIO.ConnectionConfiguration conn = 
> ElasticsearchIO.ConnectionConfiguration
>       .create(new String[]{"http://...:9200"}, "test", "test")
>       .retryWithWaitStrategy(WaitStrategies.exponentialBackoff(1000, 
> TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)
>       .retryWithStopStrategy(StopStrategies.stopAfterAttempt(10)
>     );
> {code}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to