This is quite an interesting FIP and I think it is a significant enhancement, especially for large-scale clusters.
I think you can also add the AWS case in your motivation: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/optimizing-performance-design-patterns.html#optimizing-performance-high-request-rate AWS automatically scales if requests exceed 5,500 per second for the same prefix, which results in transient 503 errors. Your approach would eliminate this problem by providing another bucket. I was wondering if it might also provide the possibility of configuring the same Fluss cluster for multi-cloud object storage systems. >From a design perspective, nothing should prevent me from storing remote data on both Azure and AWS at the same time, probably resulting in different performance numbers for different partitions/tables. Should the design force the use of only 1 filesystem implementation? Thank you again! On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 7:59 AM Liebing Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yuxia, thanks for the thoughtful response. Let me go through your > questions one by one. > > 1. I think after we support `remote.data.dirs`, different schemas will be > supported naturally. > 2. Yes, I think we should change from `PbTablePath` to > `PbPhysicalTablePath`. > 3. Thanks for the reminder. I'll poc authentication in > https://github.com/apache/fluss/issues/2518. But it doesn't block the > multiple-paths implementation in Fluss server in > https://github.com/apache/fluss/issues/2517. > 4. For a partition table, the table itself has a remote data dir for > metadata (such as lake offset). And each partition has its own remote dir > for table data (e.g. kv or log data). > 5. Legacy clients can access data in the new cluster. > > - If the permissions of the paths specified in `remote.data.dirs` on the > new cluster match those configured in `remote.data.dir`, seamless > access is > achievable. > - If the permissions are inconsistent, access permissions must be > explicitly configured. For example, when using OSS, a policy granting > access permissions to the account identified by `fs.oss.roleArn` must be > configured for each bucket specified in `remote.data.dirs`. > > > Best regards, > Liebing Yu > > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 at 10:07, Yuxia Luo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, Liebing > > > > Thanks for the detailed FIP. I have a few questions: > > 1. Does `remote.data.dirs` support paths with different schemes? For > > example: > > ``` > > remote.data.dirs: oss://bucket1/fluss-data, s3://bucket2/fluss-data > > ``` > > > > 2. Should `GetFileSystemSecurityTokenRequest` include partition? > > The FIP adds `table_path` to the request, but since different partitions > > may reside on different remote paths (and require different tokens), > > should the request also include partition information? > > > > 3. Just a reminder that `DefaultSecurityTokenManager` will become more > > complex... > > This is not a blocker, but worth a poc to recoginize any complexity > > > > 4. I want to confirm my understanding: For a partitioned table, does the > > table itself have a remote dir, AND each partition also has its own > remote > > dir? > > > > Or is it: > > - Non-partitioned table → table-level remote dir > > - Partitioned table → only partition-level remote dirs (no table-level)? > > > > 5. Can old clients (without table path in token request) still read data > > from new clusters? > > One possibe solution is : For RPCs without table information, the server > > returns a token for the first dir in `remote.data.dirs`. Or other ways > that > > allow users to configure the cluster to keep compatibility > > > > > > > > On 2026/01/21 03:52:29 Zhe Wang wrote: > > > Thanks for your response, now it looks good to me. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Zhe Wang > > > > > > Liebing Yu <[email protected]> 于2026年1月20日周二 14:29写道： > > > > > > > Hi Zhe, sorry for the late reply. > > > > > > > > The primary focus of this FIP is not to address read/write issues at > > the > > > > table or partition level, but rather to overcome limitations at the > > cluster > > > > level. Given the current capabilities of object storage, read/write > > > > performance for a single table or partition is unlikely to be a > > bottleneck; > > > > however, for a large-scale Fluss cluster, it can easily become one. > > > > Therefore, the core objective here is to distribute the cluster-wide > > > > read/write traffic across multiple remote storage systems. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Liebing Yu > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 16:07, Zhe Wang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Liebing, Thanks for the clarification. > > > > > >1. To clarify, the data is currently split by partition level for > > > > > partitioned tables and by table for non-partitioned tables. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore the main aim of this FIP is improving the speed of read > > data > > > > from > > > > > different partitions, store data speed may still limit for a single > > > > system? > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Zhe Wang > > > > > > > > > > Liebing Yu <[email protected]> 于2026年1月13日周二 19:11写道： > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Zhe, Thanks for the questions! > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. To clarify, the data is currently split by partition level for > > > > > > partitioned tables and by table for non-partitioned tables. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Regarding RemoteStorageCleaner, you are absolutely right. > > Supporting > > > > > > remote.data.dirs there is necessary for a complete cleanup when a > > table > > > > > is > > > > > > dropped. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for pointing that out! > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Liebing Yu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 at 17:02, Zhe Wang <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Liebing, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for driving this, I think it's a really useful feature. > > > > > > > I have two small questions: > > > > > > > 1. What's the scope for split data in dirs, I see there's a > > > > partitionId > > > > > > in > > > > > > > ZK Data, so the data will spit by partition in different > > directories, > > > > > or > > > > > > by > > > > > > > bucket? > > > > > > > 2. Maybe it needs to support remote.data.dirs in > > > > RemoteStorageCleaner? > > > > > So > > > > > > > we can delete all remoteStorage when delete table. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > Zhe Wang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Liebing Yu <[email protected]> 于2026年1月8日周四 20:10写道： > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose initiating discussion on FIP-25[1]. Fluss leverages > > > > remote > > > > > > > > storage systems—such as Amazon S3, HDFS, and Alibaba Cloud > > OSS—to > > > > > > > deliver a > > > > > > > > cost-efficient, highly available, and fault-tolerant storage > > > > solution > > > > > > > > compared to local disk. *However, in production environments, > > we > > > > > often > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > > that the bandwidth of a single remote storage becomes a > > bottleneck. > > > > > > > *Taking > > > > > > > > OSS[2] as an example, the typical upload bandwidth limit for > a > > > > single > > > > > > > > account is 20 Gbit/s (Internal) and 10 Gbit/s (Public). So I > > > > > initiated > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > FIP which aims to introduce support for multiple remote > storage > > > > paths > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > enables the dynamic addition of new storage paths without > > service > > > > > > > > interruption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any feedback and suggestions on this proposal are welcome! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLUSS/FIP-25%3A+Support+Multi-Location+for+Remote+Storage > > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.alibabacloud.com/help/en/oss/user-guide/limits?spm=a2c63.l28256.help-menu-31815.d_0_0_5.2ac34d06oZYFvK > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Liebing Yu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Lorenzo Affetti Senior Software Engineer @ Flink Team Ververica <http://www.ververica.com>
