[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Avatica client can not talk to Multiple Avatica Servers issue

Hi Jiandan,

Glad you found my write-up on this. One of the original design goals was to *not* implement routing logic in the client. Sticky-sessions is by far the easiest way to implement this.

There is some retry logic in the Avatica client to resubmit requests when a server responds that it doesn't have a connection/statement cached that the client thinks it should (e.g. the load balancer flipped the client to a newer server). I'm still a little concerned about this level of "smarts" :)

I don't know if there is a fancier solution that we can do in Avatica. We could consider sharing state between Avatica servers, but I think it is database-dependent as to whether or not you could correctly reconstruct an iteration through a result set.

I had talked with a dev on the Apache Hive project. He suggested that HiveServer2 just fails the query when the client is mid-query and the server dies (which is reasonably -- servers failing should be an infrequent operation).

On 8/8/18 8:09 PM, JD Zheng wrote:

Our query engine is using calcite as parser/optimizer and enumerable as runtime if needed to federate different storage engines. We are trying to enable JDBC access to our query engine. Everything works smoothly when we only have one calcite/avatica server.

However, JDBC calls will fail if we run multiple instances of calcite/avatica servers behind a generic load-balancer. Given that JDBC server is not stateless, this problem was not a surprise. I searched around and here are the two options suggested by phoenix developers (https://community.hortonworks.com/articles/9377/deploying-the-phoenix-query-server-in-production-e.html <https://community.hortonworks.com/articles/9377/deploying-the-phoenix-query-server-in-production-e.html>):
1. sticky sessions: make the router to always route a client to a given server.
2. client-driven routing: implementing Avarice’s protocol which passes an identifier to the load balancer to control how the request is routed to the backend servers.

Before we rush into any implementation, we would really appreciate it if anyone can share experience or thoughts regarding this issue. Thanks,