Apache Flume vs. IBM Analytics Engine

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

We are at present utilizing IBM Analytics Engine and it works incredible. Following are the things that I like the most about this product is:- - Simple to Utilize - Reasonable Cost - With only a couple seconds you can ready to fabricate and convey groups - you can without much of a stretch break down information through different applications

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

• We are able to build and deploy clusters within minutes to simplify user experience and increase scalability and reliability.
• We are able to scale and compute on-demand to handle newer workloads like machine learning.
• We really like that we are able to access and administer the application via multiple interfaces.

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

• I would like to see a more robust version of their online help
• The speed of their business support is adequate, but I kind of expect more from such a powerhouse.
• Problems with duration of cluster life

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

• I have been using Azure for my previous analysis, I had a difficult time in understanding the Analytics engine rather IBM provided step by step tutorial for setup.
• Also turning off a machine was not an option in Azure for some of the services so I had to pay for the service whether I use it or not

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

• It has saved us quite a bit of time managing our catalog of clusters and keeping things organized.
• Since we had a division we acquired running IBM Cloud, it was easy to get it running and try it out, but we found we prefer our Azure configuration better simply to keep our technology in alignment across corporate functions.
• I definitely see some cost savings by separating out the storage and compute. It helps you start to put an appropriate price tag on certain instances of big data.

Incentivized