exceptionfactory commented on PR #9685:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/9685#issuecomment-2637826141
Thanks for the reply @mosermw, see responses in line:
> 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).
In this scenario, is there a reason for not having load balancing enabled
all the time? Having to turn it on and off seems questionable, but perhaps
there is some other driving reason. In this scenario, is the desire that load
balancing is never enabled anywhere in the flow?
>
> 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.
Disallowing all load balancing could be a reason for a streamlined version
of this rule, but then the configuration properties could be simplified.
Allowing only specific types of load balancing across all flow configurations
seems to broad of a limitation, which is part of the fundamental concern.
>
> 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.
Would the current approach support this use case? The properties allow
compression, but would not require it if I am following. Also, this would
require the same compression setting for all load balanced connections.
>
> With many people modifying a NiFi graph, these Flow Analysis Rules are a
great tool for performing some quality checks.
I agree with you that performing quality checks is a value, the current
problem is that the rule implementation doesn't provide enough fine-grained
control. This could arguably be a limitation of the current framework
implementation for evaluating all rules across all process groups, but that's
where things stand.
--
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]
