Not an expert, but that sounds like a very reasonable use case for Kafka.
The log.retention.* configs on the edge brokers should cover your TTL needs.


On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Jason J. W. Williams <
jasonjwwilli...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> We historically have been a RabbitMQ environment, but we're looking at
> using Kafka for a new project and I'm wondering if the following
> topology/setup would work well in Kafka (for RMQ we'd use federation):
>
> * Multiple remote datacenters consisting each of a single server running an
> HTTP application that receives client data and generates events. Each
> server would also run single-node Kafka "cluster". The application would
> write events as messages into the single-node Kafka "cluster" running on
> the same machine.
> * A hub datacenter that the remote data centers are connected to via SSL.
> The hub data center would run a multi-node Kafka cluster (3 nodes).
> * Use mirrormaker in the hub data center to mirror event messages from each
> of the remote single-node servers into the hub's central Kafka cluster,
> where all of the real consumers are listening.
>
> The problem set is each of the remote servers is collecting data from
> customers over HTTP and returning responses, but those remote servers are
> also generating events from those customer interactions. We want to publish
> those events into a central hub data center for analytics. We want the
> event messages at the remote servers to queue up when their network
> connections to the hub data center is unreliable, and automatically relay
> queued messages to the hub data center when the network comes back...making
> the event relay system tolerant to WAN network faults. We'd also want to
> set up some kind of TTL on queued messages, so if the WAN connection to the
> hub is down for an extended period of time, the messages queued on the
> remote servers don't build up infinitely.
>
> Any thoughts on if this setup is advisable/inadvisable with Kafka (or any
> other thoughts on it) would be greatly appreciated.
>
> -J
>

Reply via email to