<p>I've thought about this a lot but can't come up with a solution I'm happy with. </p>

<p>Basicly this is the problem: Log 100k+ Chats (some slower, some faster) into cassandra. So save userId, channelId, timestamp and the message.</p>

<p>Cassandra already supports horizontal scaling out of the box, I have no issue here.</p>

<p>Now my software that reads these chats does it over TCP (IRC). Something like 300 messages / sec are usual for the top 1k channels and 1 single IRC connection can't handle that from my experiments.</p>

<p>What I now want to build is multiple instances (with Docker/Kubernetes) of the logger and share the load between those. So ideally if I have maybe 4 workers and 1k chats (example). They would each join atleast 250 channels. I say atleast because I would want optional redundancy so I can have 2 loggers in the same chat to make sure no messages get lost. 
There is no issue with duplicates, because all messages have a unique ID.</p>

<p>Now how would I best and dynamically share the current channels joined between the workers. I wanna avoid having a master or controlling point. Should also be easy to add more workers that then reduce the load on other workers.</p>

<p>Are there any good articles about this kind of behaviour? Maybe good concepts or protocols already defined? Like I said i wanna avoid another central control point so no rabbitmq, redis or whatever. </p>

<p>Edit: I've looked into something like the Raft Consensus Algorithm, but it doesn't make sense I think, since I don't want my clients to agree on a shared state instead divide the state between them "equally".</p>

<p>I think in this case looking for a description of existing algorithm might be not very useful: the problem is not complicated and generic enough to be worth publication. </p>

<p>As described, the problem could be solved by using Cassandra itself as a mediator and to share chat channel assignment information among the workers.</p>

<p>So (trivial part) channels would have IDs and assigned worker ID(s), plus in the optional case of redundancy - required amount of workers (2 or whatever number of workers you want to process this chat). Worker, before assigning itself to a channel would check if there is already enough assignees. If so would continue to the next channel. If not, assign itself to the channel. This is one of the options (alternatively you can have workers holding the channel IDs, but since redundancy is rare this way seems to be simpler). Workers would have a limit of channels they can process and will not try exceeding it by assigning more channels.</p>

<p>Now we only have to deal with the case of assigning too much workers to the same channel, exceeding requirements and exhausting the worker capacity by monitoring all the same channels. Otherwise, if they start all at once, channels might have more assigned workers than needed. Even though it is unlikely will create a real problem in described case (just a bit more redundancy than requested), you can handle that by prioritising workers.  Much like employing of school teachers in Canada, BC is done on seniority basis - the most senior gets job first, except that here it'd be voluntarily done by the workers themselves, not by school administration. What this means, is that each worker would have to check all it's assigned channels and, should there be more workers than needed at this time, would check if it has the smallest priority among all the assignees. If it does, it would resign - remove itself and stop processing the channel.</p>

<p>That requires assigning distinct priorities of the workers, which could be easily achieved when spawning them, by simply setting each to a next sequential number (the oldest has the highest priority, or v.v if you concerned of old, potentially dying workers taking up all the load, and would prefer new ones to take on more while still fresh). More elaborately, this could also be done by using Cassandra <a href="https://docs.datastax.com/en/archived/cassandra/2.0/cassandra/dml/dml_ltwt_transaction_c.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Lightweight transactions</a> as described in one of the answers <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3935915/how-to-create-auto-increment-ids-in-cassandra">here</a> (the <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/a/29391877/3477070">one by AlonL</a>). With just a few (you mentioned ~4) workers either way should work and concerns about scaling mentioned in the other answers there isn't a big deal for a few integer priorities. Also, instead of sequential number assignment, requiring the workers to self-assign a random 32-bit integer priority on initialization has virtually no chance of collision, so loop "until no collisions" should exit on the very first iteration (which would make a second iteration very rarely code path requiring an explicit test).</p>

<p>The trick is basically to limit the amount of data requiring synchronisation and putting the load of regulation onto the workers themselves. There is no need for consensus algorithms as there is not much complexity and we are not dealing with huge number of potentially fraudulent workers, trying to get assignments ahead of more senior peers. </p>

<p>The only issue I should mention is that there could be implicit worker rotation if channels go offline which makes worker to stop processing. You will get a different worker assignment next time the channel goes online.</p>
