I'm current trying to choose a technical solution for this problem : How to import, (why not) replay, and access a list of events (from various internal and external sources), in an adapted system?
EventSourcing seems to be a good solution for that but I can't find if it is possible to import old events.
I must say that I can receive old events anytime, but for me the important concept is not to have the states of the objects, but store the events themselves, then give it to the apps which need it.
Thanks for your help!
Of course you can import old events into new system.
I have had similar problem: several event storage with different event structure (mongodb, sql, sql with json text fields). At the end of researching we decided to replicate all events (with transformation to similar structure - timestamp, aggregateName, etc) to a new event storage. And now all applications works with this new es.
The only thing you must keep in mind is reactive replication of events from old storages if they are not read-only.
I am currently in the process of writing an ElasticSearch Nifi processor. Individual inserts / writes to ES are not optimal, instead batching documents is preferred. What would be considered the optimal approach within a Nifi processor to track (batch) documents (FlowFiles) and when at a certain amount batch them in? The part I am most concerned about is if ES is unavailable, down, network partition, etc. prevents the batch from being successful. The primary point of the question, is given that Nifi has content storage for queuing / back-pressure, etc. is there a preferred method for using that to ensure no FlowFiles get lost if a destination is down? Maybe there is another processor I should look at for an example?
I have looked at the Mongo processor, Merge, etc. to try and get an idea of the preferred approach for batching inside of a processor, but can't seem to find anything specific. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Good chance I am overlooking some basic functionality baked into Nifi. I am still fairly new to the platform.
Thanks!
Great question and a pretty common pattern. This is why we have the concept of a ProcessSession. It allows you to send zero or more things to an external endpoint and only commit once you know it has been ack'd by the recipient. In this sense it offers at least-once semantics. If the protocol you're using supports two-phase commit style semantics you can get pretty close to the ever elusive exactly-once semantic. Much of the details of what you're asking about here will depend on the destination systems API and behavior.
There are some examples in the apache codebase which reveal ways to do this. One way is if you can produce a merged collection of events prior to pushing to the destination system. Depends on its API. I think PutMongo and PutSolr operate this way (though the experts on that would need to weigh in). An example that might be more like what you're looking for can be found in PutSQL which operates on batches of flowfiles to send in a single transaction (on the destination DB).
https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/master/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-standard-bundle/nifi-standard-processors/src/main/java/org/apache/nifi/processors/standard/PutSQL.java
Will keep an eye here but can get the eye of a larger NiFi group at users#nifi.apache.org
Thanks
Joe
I need to change an existing system (written in Python using python-hl7) to accept messages with details of a surgical procedure for a patient and then record those details in a database as part of their medical record. This question is more about HL7 (v2) than Python or python-hl7, though. I couldn't find a better Stack Exchange "community" to post this in.
What message types, segments should be used to record details of a surgical procedure. e.g. what procedure was done, when it started and ended, what the outcome was, where it took place, who the primary and assistant surgeons were, etc.
From what I've been able to find so far it seems some sort of ADT message (e.g. A04) with a PR1 segment should be used. Is this correct? Are there example messages?
Thanks.
EDIT: To be clear I am not looking for Python examples. I am looking for sample HL7 messages to get an idea of how other people do it. Of course clear and unambiguous documentation that says exactly what fields are required and exactly what they can/should contain would also help.
It's very unlikely that you can find a single message that covers everything related to surgery (ORU is the closest one). In general surgery is type of Act similar to other events that may happen with the patient. For that reason you need to decide what you are looking for since a “surgery” can be divided into admission/discharge/transfer (ADT), scheduling (SIU, OMS), patient summary (MDM), preoperative (MFN, ORU), intraoperative (ORU, DFT), postoperative (ORU, MDM, DFT, MFN).
Exact type and place of the surgery can be specified by ICD-10 or SNOMED CT.
I'm very new to settop box project.Is there any materials available to study the basics of its internals and the working of it.I dont know how to start understand about it.I was looking for the architecture of middleware,DCCM and other components.I need to know how these components interact with each other.I need to know how by pressing a particular event in the EPG menu we could able to get the event corresponding to the service.I need to know the interaction between the tables.How to set the reminder in EPG and how the interactive TV works.
This is only a very partial answer to your question. Rather i would say, this is the first preliminary work you must accomplish before getting deeper into interactivity.
The tutorial here on PSIP: Program specific information show how the ATSC (or DVB is similar) is organized in the form of periodic tables including some tables that indicate EPG. By reading and processing such tables you will be able to accomplish the desired work.
Essentially, EPG table contains the information about the program and its respective time. And the actual timing information is contained in the TDT and TOT table. These tables tells the STB's the current time (on wall clock). Once, the respective time occurs, as per the TDT/TOT, the notification action can fire.
Below here are two more important references to Transport stream structures.
PSIP tutorial
The ATSC transport layer, including program and system information protocol (PSIP)
Please read the above pre-requsite and then refine your question.
I would like to make a system whereby users can upload and download files. The system will have a centralized topography but will rely heavily on peers to transfer relevant data through the central node to other peers. Instead of peers holding entire files I would like for them to hold a compressed an encrypted portion of the whole data set.
Some client uploads file to server anonymously
I would like for the client to be able to upload using some sort of NAT (random ip), realizing that the server would not be able to send confirmation packets back to the client. Is ensuring data integrity feasible with a header relaying the total content length, and disregarding the entire upload if there is a mismatch?
Server indexes, compresses and splits the data into chunks adding identifying bytes to each chunk, encrypts it, and splits the data over the network while mapping the locations of each chunk.
The server will also update the file index for peers upon request. As more data is added to the system, I imagine that the compression can become more efficient. I would like to be able to push these new dictionary entries to peers so they can update both their chunks and the decompression system in the client software, without causing overt network strain. If encrypted, the chunks can be large without any client being aware of having part of x file.
Some client requests a file
The central node performs a lookup to determine the location of the chunks within the network and requests these chunks from peers. Once the chunks have been assembled, they are sent (still encrypted and compressed) to the client, who then translates the content into the decompressed file. It would be nice if an encrypted request could be made through a peer and relayed to a server, and onion routed through multiple paths with end-to-end encryption.
In the background, the server will be monitoring the stability and redundancy of the chunks, and if necessary will take on chunks that near extinction, and either hold them in it's own bank or redistribute them over the network if there are willing clients. In this way, the central node can shrink and grow as appropriate.
The goal is to have a network within which any client can upload or download data with no single other peer knowing who has done either, but with free and open access to all.
The system must be able to handle a massive amount of simultaneous connections while managing the peers and data library without loosing it's head.
What would be your optimal implementation?
Edit : Bounty opened.
Over the weekend, I implemented a system that does basically the above, minus part 1. For the upload, I just implemented SSL instead of forging the IP address. The system is weak in several areas. Files are split into 1MB chunks and encrypted, and sent to registered peers at random. The recipient(s) for each chunk are stored in the database. I fear that this will quickly grow too large to be manageable, but I also want to avoid having to flood the network with chunk requests. When a file is requested, the central node informs peers possessing the chunks that they need to send the chunks to x client (in p2p mode) or to the server (in direct mode), which then transfers the file down. The system is just one big hack, and written in ruby, which I imagine is not really up to the task. For the rewrite, I am considering using C++ with Boost.Asio.
I am looking for general suggestions regarding architecture and system design. I am not at all attached to my current implementation.
Current Topography
Server Handling client uploads,indexing, and content propagation
Server Handling client requests
Client for upload files and requesting files
Client Server accepting chunks and requests
I would like for the client not to have to have a persistent server running, but I can't think of a good way around it.
I would post some of the code but its embarassing. Thanks. Please ask any questions, the basic idea is to have a decent anonymous file sharing model combining the strengths of both the distributed and centralized model of content distribution. If you have a totally different idea, please feel free to post it if you want.
I would like for the client to be able
to upload using some sort of NAT
(random ip), realizing that the server
would not be able to send confirmation
packets back to the client. Is
ensuring data integrity feasible with
a header relaying the total content
length, and disregarding the entire
upload if there is a mismatch?
No, that's not feasible. If your packets are 1500 bytes, and you have 0.1% packetloss, the chance of a one megabyte file being uploaded without any lost packets is .999 ^ (1048576 / 1500) = 0.497, or under 50%. Further, it's not clear how the client would even know if the upload succeeded if the server has no way to send acknowledgements back to the client.
One way around the acknowledgement issue would be to use a rateless code, which allows the client to compute and send an effectively infinite number of unique blocks, such that any sufficiently large subset is enough to reconstruct the original file. This adds a large amount of complexity to both the client and server, however, and still requires some way to notify the client that the server has received the complete file.
It seems to me you're confusing several issues here. If your system has a centralized component to which your clients upload, why do you need to do NAT traversal at all?
For parts two and three of your question, you probably want to research Distributed Hash Tables and content-based addressing (but with major caveats explained here). Preventing the nodes from knowing the content of the files they store could be accomplished by, for example, encrypting the files with the first hash of their content, and storing them keyed by the second hash - this means that anyone who knows the hash of the file can retrieve it, but clients cannot decrypt the files they host.
In general, I would suggest starting by writing down a solid list of goals for the system you're designing, then looking for an architecture that suits those goals. In contrast, it sounds like you have some implicit goals, and have already picked a basic system architecture - which may not suit your full goals - based on that.
Sorry for arriving late at the generous 500 reputation party, but even if i am too late i would like to add a little of my research to your discussion.
Yes such a system would be nice, like Bittorrent but with encrypted files and hashes of the un-encrypted data. In BT you can add encrypted files of course, but then the hashes would be of the encrypted data and thus not possible to identify retrieval-sources without a centralized queryKey->hashCollection storage, i.e. a server that does all the work of identifying package-sources for every client. A similar system was attempted by Freenet (http://freenetproject.org/), although more limited than what you attempt.
For the NAT consideration let's first look at: aClient -> yourServer (and aClient->aClient later)
For the communication between a client and your server the NATs (and firewalls that shield the clients) are not an issue! Since the clients initiate the connection to your server (which has either fixed ip-address or a dns-entry (or dyndns)) you dont even have to think about NATs, the server can respond without an issue since, even if multiple clients are behind a single corporate firewall the firewall (its NAT) will look up with which client the server wants to communicate and forwards accordingly (without you having to tell it to).
Now the "hard" part: client -> client communication through firewalls/NAT: The central technique you can use is hole-punching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDP_hole_punching). It works so well it is what Skype uses (from one client behind a corporate firewall to another; (if it does not succeed it uses a mirroring-server)). For this you need both clients to know the address of the other and then shoot some packets at eachother so how do they get eachother's addresses?: Your server gives the addresses to the clients (this requires that not only a requester but also every distributer open a connection to your server periodically).
Before i talk about your concern about data-integrity, the general distinction between packages and packets you could (and i guess should) make:
You just have to consider that you can separate between your (application-domain) packages (large) and the packets used for internet-transmission (small, limited by MTU among other things): It would be slow to have both be the same size, the size of a maximum tcp/ip packet is 576 (minus overhead; take a look here: http://www.comsci.us/datacom/ippacket.html ); you could do some experiments about what a good size for your packages is, my best guess is that 50k-1M would all be fine (but profiling would optimize that since we dont if most of the files you want to distribute are large or small).
About data-integrity: For your packages you definitely need a hash, i would recommend to directly take a cryptographic hash since this prevents tampering (in addition to corruption); you dont need to record the size of the packages since if the hash is faulty you have to re-transmit the package anyways. Bear in mind, that this kind of package-corruption is not very frequent if you use TCP/IP for packet transmission (yes, you can use TCP/IP even in your scenario), it automatically corrects (re-requests) transmission-errors. The huge advantage is that all computers and routers in between know TCP/IP and check for corruption automatically on every step in between the source and destination computer, so they can re-request the packet themselves which makes it very fast. They would not know about a packet-integrity-protocol you implement yourself so with that custom protocol the packet has to arrive at the destination before the re-request can even start.
For the next thought let's call the client which publishes a file the "publisher", i know this is kind of obvious, however it is important to distinguish this from "uploader", since the client does not need to upload the file to your server (just some info about it, see below).
Implementing the central indexing-server should be no problem, the problem would be that you plan to have it encrypt all the files itself instead of making the publisher do that heavy work (good encryption is very heavy lifting). The only problem with having the publisher (not the server) encrypt the data is, that you have to trust the publisher to give you reasonable search-keywords: theoretically it could give you a very attractive search-keyword every client desires together with a reference to bogus data (encrypted data is hard to distinguish from random data). But the solution to this problem is crowd-sourcing: make your server store a user-rating so downloaders can vote on files. The implementation of the table you need could be a regular-old hash-table of individual search-keywords to client-ID's (see below) who have that package. The publisher is at first the only client that holds the data, but every client that downloaded at least one of the packages should then be added to the hash-table's entry, so if the publisher goes offline and every package has been downloaded by at least one client everything continues working. Now critically the mapping client-ID->IP-Addresses is non-trivial because it changes often (e.g. every 24 hours for many clients); to compensate, you have to have another table on your server that makes this mapping and make the clients contact the server periodically (e.g. every hour) to tell it its IP-address. I would recommend using a crypto-hash for client-ID's so that it is impossible for one client to trash this table by telling you fake ID's.
For any questions and criticism, please comment.
I am not sure having one central point of attack (the central server) is a very good idea. That of course depends on the kind of problems you want to be able to handle. It also limits your scalability a lot