I put some of the data I was working with on the wiki - https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/NiFi+1.5.0+nar+files
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Jeremy Dyer <jdy...@gmail.com> wrote: > So my favorite option is Bryan’s option number “three” of using the > extension registry. Now my thought is do we really need to add complexity > and do anything in the mean time or just focus on that? Meaning we have > roughly 500mb of available capacity today so why don’t we spend those man > hours we would spend on getting the second repo up on the extension > registry instead? > > @Bryan do you have thoughts about the deployment of those bars in the > extension registry? Since we won’t be able to build the release binary > anymore would we still need to create separate repos for the nars or no?? I > have used the registry a little but I’m not 100% sure on your vision for > the nars > > - Jeremy Dyer > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jan 12, 2018, at 10:18 PM, Tony Kurc <tk...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > I was looking at nar sizes, and thought some data may be helpful. I used > my recent RC1 verification as a basis for getting file sizes, and just got > the file size for each file in the assembly named "*.nar". I don't know > whether the images I pasted in will go through, but I made some graphs.b > The first is a histogram of nar file size in buckets of 10MB. The second > basically is similar to a cumulative distribution, the x axis is the "rank" > of the nar (smallest to largest), and the y-axis is how what fraction of > the all the sizes of the nars together are that rank or lower. In other > words, on the graph, the dot at 60 and ~27 means that the smallest 60 nars > contribute only ~27% of the total. Of note, the standard and framework nars > are at 83 and 84. > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> And of course, as I hit <send> I thought of one more thing. > >> > >> We could keep all of the code in 1 git repo (1 project) but the > >> nifi-assembly part of the build could be broken up to build core NiFi > >> separately from the tar/zip functional grouping of other NARs. > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > Long term I would also like to see #3 be the solution. I think what > >> > Joseph N described could be part of the capabilities of #3. > >> > > >> > I would like to add a note of caution with respect to reorganizing and > >> > releasing extension bundles separately: > >> > > >> > - the burden on release manager expands because many more projects > >> > have to be released; probably not all on each release cycle but it > could > >> > still be many > >> > - the chance of accidentally forgetting to release a project in a > >> > release cycle becomes non-zero > >> > - sharing code between projects gets a bit harder because you have > to > >> > manage releasing projects in a specific order > >> > - it becomes harder to find all of the projects that need to change > >> > when shared code is added > >> > - the simple act of finding code becomes harder ... in which > project > >> > is that class in? (IDEs like IntelliJ can search in 1 project, but > if they > >> > search across multiple projects, then I haven't learned how) > >> > > >> > I used to maintain several nars in separate projects, and recently > >> > reorganized them into 1 project (following NiFi's multi-module maven > build) > >> > and life has become much easier! > >> > > >> > -- Mike > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Chris Herrera < > chris.herrer...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> I very much like the solution proposed by Bryan below. This would > allow > >> >> for a cleaner docker image as well, while still proving the > functionality > >> >> as needed. For sure, the extension registry will be great, but in > the mean > >> >> time this is an adequate mid step. > >> >> > >> >> Regards, > >> >> Chris > >> >> > >> >> On Jan 12, 2018, 2:52 PM -0600, Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com>, > wrote: > >> >> > Long term I'd like to see the extension registry take form and have > >> >> > that be the solution (#3). > >> >> > > >> >> > In the more near term, we could separate all of the NARs, except > for > >> >> > framework and maybe standard processors & services, into a separate > >> >> > git repo. > >> >> > > >> >> > In that new git repo we could organize things like Joe N just > >> >> > described according to some kind of functional grouping. Each of > these > >> >> > functional bundles could produce its own tar/zip which we can make > >> >> > available for download. > >> >> > > >> >> > That would separate the release cycles between core NiFi and the > other > >> >> > NARs, and also avoid having any single binary artifact that gets > too > >> >> > large. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Joseph Niemiec < > josephx...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > just a random thought. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Drop In Lib packs... All the Hadoop ones in one package for > example > >> >> that > >> >> > > can be added to a slim Nifi install. Another may be for Cloud, or > >> >> Database > >> >> > > Interactions, Integration (JMS, FTP, etc) of course defining > these > >> >> groups > >> >> > > would be the tricky part... Or perhaps some type of installer > which > >> >> allows > >> >> > > you to elect which packages to download to add to the slim > install? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Team, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > The NiFi convenience binary (tar.gz/zip) size has grown to > 1.1GB now > >> >> > > > in the latest release. Apache infra expanded it to 1.6GB > allowance > >> >> > > > for us but has stated this is the last time. > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15816 > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > We need consider: > >> >> > > > 1) removing old nars/less commonly used nars/or particularly > massive > >> >> > > > nars from the assembly we distribute by default. Folks can > still use > >> >> > > > these things if they want just not from our convenience binary > >> >> > > > 2) collapsing nars with highly repeating deps > >> >> > > > 3) Getting the extension registry baked into the Flow Registry > then > >> >> > > > moving to separate releases for extension bundles. The main > release > >> >> > > > then would be just the NiFi framework. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Any other ideas ? > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I'll plan to start identifying candiates for removal soon. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks > >> >> > > > Joe > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > -- > >> >> > > Joseph > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > >
