mosermw commented on PR #9685: URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/9685#issuecomment-2637669667
> However, as mentioned earlier, the fundamental approach of the rule does not seem like something that should be included for ongoing maintenance in the project. Allowing or disallowing load balancing across the board does not provide a useful level of granularity, so as it stands, I'm a -1 on the overall addition at this time. Perhaps a use case or two can help change your mind @exceptionfactory. I support users that temporarily add load balanced connections to help distribute a rare spike in flowfile load (think of a Split processor that normally has no trouble but will rarely output millions of flowfiles). They load balance a connection to work off a load, then 2 hours later want to remove that load balancing later. A Flow Analysis Rule such as this (in WARN enforcement mode) can ensure that this isn't forgotten and mistakenly left in place (which happens a lot). Another use case is a NiFi system owner has given access to tenants and doesn't want those tenants to use certain load balanced connection configurations, or load balancing at all. Another use case can be the desire to require compression on attributes+content because the flow manager knows that their data is easily compressible and wants to ensure this efficiency is always enabled. With many people modifying a NiFi graph, these Flow Analysis Rules are a great tool for performing some quality checks. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
