hi, Ishan, can you please elaborate a bit about your use case?
for your example of 3 cluster, I think it should be set up as two M-S for the same table:family first one: A = Master, B = Slave 2nd one: B = slave, C = Master. There is no need to setup the direct relationship between A and C Demai On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ishan Chhabra <[email protected]>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. >
