Ted: Yes. It is the same table that is being written to from all locations. A single row could be updated from multiple locations, but our schema is designed in a manner that writes will be independent and not clobber each other.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Ted Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > Ishan: > In your use case, the same table is written to in 10 clusters at roughly > the same time ? > > Please clarify. > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Ishan Chhabra <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > @Demai, > > We actually have 10 clusters in different locations. > > The replication scope is not an issue for me since I have only one column > > family and we want it replicated to each location. > > Can you elaborate more on why a replication setup of more than 3-4 > clusters > > would be a headache in your opinion? > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Ishan Chhabra <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > @Demai, > > > Writes from B should also go to A and C. So, if I were to continue on > > your > > > suggestion, I would setup A-B master master and B-C master-master, > which > > is > > > what I was proposing in the 2nd approach (MST based). > > > > > > @Vladimir > > > That is classified. :P > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Vladimir Rodionov < > > [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.* > > >> > > >> Preparing to thermonuclear war? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 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. > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > *Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > *Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc. > > > -- *Ishan Chhabra *| Rocket Scientist | RocketFuel Inc.
