I agree with Stephen about "database" devaluing what Ignite can do (though it probably hits the majority of existing use cases). I tend to go with "massively distributed storage and compute platform"
I know, I didn't take sides, I just have both. Cheers, Glenn On Thu., Sep. 17, 2020, 7:04 a.m. Stephen Darlington, < stephen.darling...@gridgain.com> wrote: > I think this is a great question. Explaining what Ignite does is always a > challenge, so having a useful “tag line” would be very valuable. > > I’m not sure what the answer is but I think calling it a “database” > devalues all the compute facilities. "Computing platform” may be too vague > but it at least says that we do more than “just” store data. > > On 17 Sep 2020, at 06:29, Valentin Kulichenko < > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My vote is for the "distributed memory-first database". It clearly states > that Ignite is a database (which is true at this point), while still > emphasizing the in-memory computing power endorsed by the platform. > > The "in-memory computing platform" is an ambiguous term and doesn't really > reflect what Ignite is, especially in its current state. > > -Val > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:53 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Igniters, >> >> Throughout the history of our project, we could see how the addition of >> certain features required us to reassess the project's name and category. >> >> Before Ignite joined the ASF, it supported only compute APIs resembling >> the >> MapReduce engine of Hadoop. Those days, it was fair to define Ignite as "a >> distributed in-memory computing engine". Next, at the time of the project >> donation, it already included key-value/SQL/transactional APIs, was used >> as >> a distributed cache, and significantly outgrew the "in-memory computing >> engine" use case. That's how the project transitioned to the product >> category of in-memory caches and we started to name it as an "in-memory >> data grid" or "in-memory computing platform" to differentiate from >> classical caching products such as Memcached and Redis. >> >> Nowadays, the project outgrew its caching use case, and the classification >> of Ignite as an "in-memory data grid" or "in-memory computing platform" >> doesn't sound accurate. We rebuilt our storage engine by replacing a >> typical key-value engine with a B-tree engine that spans across memory and >> disk tiers. And it's not surprising to see more deployments of Ignite as a >> database on its own. So, it feels like we need to reconsider Ignite >> positioning again so that a) application developers can discover it easily >> via search engines and b) the project can stand out from in-memory >> projects >> with intersecting capabilities. >> >> To the point, I'm suggesting to reposition Ignite in one of the following >> ways: >> >> 1. Ignite is a "distributed X database". We are indeed a distributed >> partitioned database where X can be "multi-tiered" or "memory-first" to >> emphasize that we are more than an in-memory database. >> 2. Keep defining Ignite as "an in-memory computing platform" but name >> our storage engine uniquely as "IgniteDB" to highlight that the >> platform is >> powered by a "distributed multi-tiered/memory-first database". >> >> What is your thinking? >> >> >> (Also, regardless of a selected name, Ignite still will be used as a cache >> and grid, and we're not going to stop appealing to those use cases. But >> those are just use cases while Ignite has to figure out its new identity >> ... again). >> >> >> - >> Denis >> > > >
