Dmitriy, I like the first approach with applying Maxim's idea of creating a branch > named -igfs-Hadoop (not release, but current master state).
+1 for this approach. Any other opinions before we finalize this discussion? - Denis On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:28 AM Dmitriy Pavlov <dpav...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Denis, > > I like the first approach with applying Maxim's idea of creating a branch > named -igfs-Hadoop (not release, but current master state). > 2nd) 3rd party repo can be Apache repo just like ignite-release. But it's > true it is time-consuming to move code. > 3rd) Attic is for projects, I hope no one here wants to Ignite to be there > :) I'm not sure it is possible to move just one component there. But if it > is possible, we should anyway start from 2nd option and create standalone > repo ignite-igfs-hadoop (and it will become later > attic-ignite-igfs-hadoop). > > But if someone could stand up and say he/she wants to do migration from one > repo to another (option 2), I like it as well. > > Sincerely > > вт, 18 июн. 2019 г. в 21:05, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > Igniters, > > > > Thanks a lot for sharing your opinion. As I see, there is a consensus > that > > IGFS and Hadoop Accelerator are to be discontinued and no longer > supported > > by the community. > > > > As for the source code, if the community prefers moving the source code > to > > another repository rather than removing it, then let's do it. I see 3 > > solutions here: > > > > - The simplest - just point out to the latest Ignite release branch > that > > has the source code. This should be Ignite 2.6.0. Remove from Ignite > > master. > > - Decouple from the master and move to a 3rd party Github repo. More > > complicated and time-consuming. > > - See if we should move the component to Apache Attic ( > > http://attic.apache.org): the Attic is designed for projects to be > > retired but not for the components. Thus, that might be not an option. > > > > Personally, I'm for the first approach. Does it sound reasonable? > > > > - > > Denis > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 7:39 AM Maxim Muzafarov <maxmu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > +1 to reduce the number of supported features. > > > > > > Probably, the best solution will be removing IGFS from core module and > > > making it as an Ignite plugin (will require some efforts to do this). > > > I've also think we can move IGFS to the separate branch (from the > > > master one) if someone will decide merge to latest changes from the > > > master branch to build Ignite from scratch with IGFS feature. > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 22:42, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 from me to reduce supported feature list. > > > > > Guys, are we talking about Ignite 3.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nikolay, I would discontinue IGFS before 3.0. Let's do this in the > next > > > > release? As for other features and integrations, 3.0 should be > > considered > > > > as a version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 from me provided that we move sources to some supplementary > > > repository. > > > > > If someone later would like to maintain/fix this module, he/she > > should > > > be > > > > > able to access sources with current state of the master. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitry, are you suggesting to move the sources to Github and abandon > > them > > > > there? Sort of legacy code cemetery. > > > > > > > > - > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:00 AM Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 from me to reduce supported feature list. > > > > > > > > > > Guys, are we talking about Ignite 3.0? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > В Пн, 17/06/2019 в 11:57 +0300, Alexey Goncharuk пишет: > > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > > > > > > I fully support this idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > First, looking back, I do not think it was a good design in the > > first > > > > > place > > > > > > to build IGFS on top of Ignite caches. Second, I have never seen > a > > > case > > > > > > where IGFS provided significant performance boost. Usually it's > > > either > > > > > all > > > > > > data already fits buffer cache, and IGFS caching is not needed; > or > > > data > > > > > > does not fit buffer cache, and access pattern is close to full > scan > > > and > > > > > > additional caching in IGFS does not make sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > пн, 17 июн. 2019 г. в 11:28, Павлухин Иван <vololo...@gmail.com > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Denis, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I must say that aforementioned solutions for a Hadoop ecosystem > > > appear > > > > > > > from time to time in questions on a user mailing list. So, it > > seems > > > > > > > that there is a practical need for such solutions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But of course it does not mean that we should continue a > support > > of > > > > > > > IGFS and Hadoop Accelerator. If both are not solutions that fit > > > well > > > > > > > common use cases then we should discontinue it. If any of them > is > > > very > > > > > > > good for it's purposes but we do not have a capacity to support > > it > > > > > > > without sacrificing main Ignite goals then we still should > > > discontinue > > > > > > > it in my mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. Personally I am a fan of UNIX way. I like ideas of a > single > > > > > > > responsibility and integrations. And I suppose there are other > > > Ignite > > > > > > > features which could be dropped. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ср, 12 июн. 2019 г. в 21:04, Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like us to move on and finish our conversation on the > IGFS > > > [1] > > > > > and > > > > > > > > Hadoop Accelerator [2] support. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To my knowledge, there is no single committer who maintains > the > > > > > > > > integrations; they are no longer tested and, even more, the > > > community > > > > > > > > stopped providing the binaries since Ignite 2.6.0 release > (look > > > for > > > > > > > > In-Memory Hadoop Accelerator table [3]). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why all of that happened? Because of a little value, > something > > > > > succeeds > > > > > > > > while something fails. Does it mean that Ignite cannot be > used > > > for > > > > > Hadoop > > > > > > > > acceleration, in general? No, quite the opposite, it CAN be > > used, > > > > > but a > > > > > > > > solution is different. Have Ignite with native persistence > > > deployed > > > > > close > > > > > > > > to your Hadoop cluster (replace GridGain with Ignite) [4]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I propose we remove IGFS and In-Memory Hadoop Accelerator > > > from > > > > > our > > > > > > > > master repository and rework existing public documentation > > > showing > > > > > how to > > > > > > > > achieve the acceleration with Ignite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any supporters or objections? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > https://apacheignite-fs.readme.io/docs/in-memory-file-system > > > > > > > > [2] > https://apacheignite-fs.readme.io/docs/hadoop-accelerator > > > > > > > > [3] https://ignite.apache.org/download.cgi#binaries > > > > > > > > [4] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.gridgain.com/docs/bdb-getting-started#section-gridgain-data-lake-accelerator > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > Ivan Pavlukhin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
