Adam, You defined GigaSpaces as a true in-memory computing platform. What is the true platform for you?
- Denis On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM Carbone, Adam <adam.carb...@bottomline.com> wrote: > So when I came across Ignite It was described as an In Memory Data Grid > > So one way to look at this is who do you fashion as Ignite competing > against? > > Are competing against Redis, Aerospike - In Memory Databases > > Or are you more competing with > > Gigaspaces - True In memory Compute platform > > And then you have like of > > Hazelcast that started as a Distributed Hash and have gained some > features... > > On thing that I think is a differentiator that isn't being highlighted but > Is unique feature to Ignited, and the primary reason we ended up here; The > integration with spark and it's distributed/shared Datasets/Dataframes. > > I don't know for me the In Memory Data Grid I think fits what Ignite is... > > Regards > > ~Adam > > Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team | > Bottomline Technologies > Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 > www.bottomline.com > > > > On 9/17/20, 11:45 AM, "Glenn Wiebe" <glenn.wi...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > 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 > >> > > > > > > > >
