On 29 October 2012 01:15, David Parks wrote:
> I need a unique & permanent ID assigned to new item encountered, which has
> a constraint that it is in the range of, let’s say for simple discussion,
> one to one million.
>
I'd go for UUID generation, which you can do in parallel -though it doesn'
ch that I could
identify which block of IDs to assign each one?
Thanks,
David
From: Ted Dunning [mailto:tdunn...@maprtech.com]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 12:58 PM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cluster wide atomic operations
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 9:15 PM, David P
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 9:15 PM, David Parks wrote:
> I need a unique & permanent ID assigned to new item encountered, which has
> a constraint that it is in the range of, let’s say for simple discussion,
> one to one million.
>
Having such a limited range may require that you have a central ser
n trivial its self with failure concerns.
Perhaps there’s just a better way of thinking of this?
*From:* Ted Dunning [mailto:tdunn...@maprtech.com ]
*Sent:* Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:23 PM
*To:* user@hadoop.apache.org
*Subject:* Re: Cluster wide atomic operations
This is better ask
lure concerns.
>
> ** **
>
> Perhaps there’s just a better way of thinking of this?
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Ted Dunning [mailto:tdunn...@maprtech.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:23 PM
> *To:* user@hadoop.apache.org
>
ailto:tdunn...@maprtech.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:23 PM
To: user@hadoop.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cluster wide atomic operations
This is better asked on the Zookeeper lists.
The first answer is that global atomic operations are a generally bad idea.
The second answer is that i
z
This is better asked on the Zookeeper lists.
The first answer is that global atomic operations are a generally bad idea.
The second answer is that if you an batch these operations up then you can
cut the evilness of global atomicity by a substantial factor.
Are you sure you need a global counter
