[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1484?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15135894#comment-15135894
]
Joseph Witt commented on NIFI-1484:
-----------------------------------
Yep that does make sense. I believe the necessity for holding filenames goes
away by simply saying 'given me all files with a modification time between
(Now-1 and LastTime). The only reason I can see for worrying about filenames
is when there are edge conditions on the concept of 'Now' and by simply saying
'a little older than right now' we solve them. That doesn't introduce any new
problems because we always honored the concept of 'LastTime' and anything
beyond that (even if it came in new) would be missed anyway and we're saying
that is ok but virtue of declaring how this thing functions.
The fix is going in AbstractListProcessor so I think we're addressing all the
procs you mention at once.
Thanks
Joe
> ListFile holds unbounded list of files with matching time stamps
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: NIFI-1484
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-1484
> Project: Apache NiFi
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core UI, Extensions
> Affects Versions: 0.4.0, 0.5.0
> Reporter: Joseph Witt
>
> ListFile appears to hold an unbounded set of filenames that match the last
> timestamp. While this is understandable to handle the edge case of new data
> arriving at the same time it presents two problems. First we hold all of
> this information in state management which could put considerable pressure on
> both the local and remote stores but we also have it in memory before we
> persist it.
> Also, the entire state listing appears to show up in the UI without
> pagination or any limit on number of entries. This seems like a problem for
> the client-side as well. The server side should probably restrict this.
> Finally, it seems like the need for saving filenames seen at a given
> timestamp is only necessary if we're assuming the listing we do is 'as-of'
> RIGHT NOW. What is instead we did the listing based on a last modified time
> of 'RIGHTNOW'-1 millisecond or something like that? Then we should not have
> to worry at all about keeping a listing of names for the timestamp.
> The reason I think this is important is that it is not at all uncommon for a
> directory with large quantities of files to have data at the same time due to
> a copy operation not preserving original file attributes.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
