Apache Flume vs. Apache ORC

Apache Flume is well suited in small batch and near real time processing projects, taking data from one point to another with local processing (I mean not external enrichment).
Filtering, transforming and multiple push destinations are common grounds for Flume.
It is not so nice to use if your data needs external enrichment (taking data from external databases or web services), as transactions and (micro)batches may lead to reprocessing and it relies upon the application to avoid duplicates.

Incentivized

• Multiple sources of data (sources) and destinations (sinks) that allows you to move data form and to any relevant data storage
• It is very easy to setup and run
• Very open to personalization, you can create filters, enrichment, new sources and destinations

Incentivized

• It is very specific for log data ingestion so it is pretty hard to use for anything else besides log data
• Data replication is not built in and needs to be added on top of Apache Flume (not a hard job to do though)

Incentivized

Apache Flume is open-source so support is limited. Never the less, it has great documentation and best practices documents from their end-users so it is not hard to use, setup and configure.

Incentivized

Apache Flume is on par with Scribe with similar functions. Apache Kafka is a generation purpose while Apache Flume is specific to log aggregation. Google Pub/Sub and IBM MQ are costlier than Apache Flume ( open source ) and have a lot more cost associated with them. Apama Streaming Analytics and Tibco Steaming are more comprehensive streaming solutions than Apache Flume so for deeper performance guarantees, it is easier to use Apache Flume.

Incentivized

• Positive impact on ROI due to a reduction in manual labor to generate and maintain compliance reports based on logs.
• Positive impact on the business objective by reducing the need for provisioning compute for log aggregate IT stack in advance but adding on an as-needed basis.

Incentivized