Igniters, Thanks a lot for sharing your opinion. As I see, there is a consensus that IGFS and Hadoop Accelerator are to be discontinued and no longer supported by the community.
As for the source code, if the community prefers moving the source code to another repository rather than removing it, then let's do it. I see 3 solutions here: - The simplest - just point out to the latest Ignite release branch that has the source code. This should be Ignite 2.6.0. Remove from Ignite master. - Decouple from the master and move to a 3rd party Github repo. More complicated and time-consuming. - See if we should move the component to Apache Attic ( http://attic.apache.org): the Attic is designed for projects to be retired but not for the components. Thus, that might be not an option. Personally, I'm for the first approach. Does it sound reasonable? - Denis On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:39 AM Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Folks, > > +1 to reduce the number of supported features. > > Probably, the best solution will be removing IGFS from core module and > making it as an Ignite plugin (will require some efforts to do this). > I've also think we can move IGFS to the separate branch (from the > master one) if someone will decide merge to latest changes from the > master branch to build Ignite from scratch with IGFS feature. > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:42, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 from me to reduce supported feature list. > > > Guys, are we talking about Ignite 3.0? > > > > > > Nikolay, I would discontinue IGFS before 3.0. Let's do this in the next > > release? As for other features and integrations, 3.0 should be considered > > as a version. > > > > > > > +1 from me provided that we move sources to some supplementary > repository. > > > If someone later would like to maintain/fix this module, he/she should > be > > > able to access sources with current state of the master. > > > > > > Dmitry, are you suggesting to move the sources to Github and abandon them > > there? Sort of legacy code cemetery. > > > > - > > Denis > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:00 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > +1 from me to reduce supported feature list. > > > > > > Guys, are we talking about Ignite 3.0? > > > > > > > > > В Пн, 17/06/2019 в 11:57 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > > I fully support this idea. > > > > > > > > First, looking back, I do not think it was a good design in the first > > > place > > > > to build IGFS on top of Ignite caches. Second, I have never seen a > case > > > > where IGFS provided significant performance boost. Usually it's > either > > > all > > > > data already fits buffer cache, and IGFS caching is not needed; or > data > > > > does not fit buffer cache, and access pattern is close to full scan > and > > > > additional caching in IGFS does not make sense. > > > > > > > > пн, 17 июн. 2019 г. в 11:28, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > > > > I must say that aforementioned solutions for a Hadoop ecosystem > appear > > > > > from time to time in questions on a user mailing list. So, it seems > > > > > that there is a practical need for such solutions. > > > > > > > > > > But of course it does not mean that we should continue a support of > > > > > IGFS and Hadoop Accelerator. If both are not solutions that fit > well > > > > > common use cases then we should discontinue it. If any of them is > very > > > > > good for it's purposes but we do not have a capacity to support it > > > > > without sacrificing main Ignite goals then we still should > discontinue > > > > > it in my mind. > > > > > > > > > > P.S. Personally I am a fan of UNIX way. I like ideas of a single > > > > > responsibility and integrations. And I suppose there are other > Ignite > > > > > features which could be dropped. > > > > > > > > > > ср, 12 июн. 2019 г. в 21:04, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like us to move on and finish our conversation on the IGFS > [1] > > > and > > > > > > Hadoop Accelerator [2] support. > > > > > > > > > > > > To my knowledge, there is no single committer who maintains the > > > > > > integrations; they are no longer tested and, even more, the > community > > > > > > stopped providing the binaries since Ignite 2.6.0 release (look > for > > > > > > In-Memory Hadoop Accelerator table [3]). > > > > > > > > > > > > Why all of that happened? Because of a little value, something > > > succeeds > > > > > > while something fails. Does it mean that Ignite cannot be used > for > > > Hadoop > > > > > > acceleration, in general? No, quite the opposite, it CAN be used, > > > but a > > > > > > solution is different. Have Ignite with native persistence > deployed > > > close > > > > > > to your Hadoop cluster (replace GridGain with Ignite) [4]. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I propose we remove IGFS and In-Memory Hadoop Accelerator > from > > > our > > > > > > master repository and rework existing public documentation > showing > > > how to > > > > > > achieve the acceleration with Ignite. > > > > > > > > > > > > Any supporters or objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://apacheignite-fs.readme.io/docs/in-memory-file-system > > > > > > [2] https://apacheignite-fs.readme.io/docs/hadoop-accelerator > > > > > > [3] https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.gridgain.com/docs/bdb-getting-started#section-gridgain-data-lake-accelerator > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > >
