Hi Zhe, sorry for the late reply. The primary focus of this FIP is not to address read/write issues at the table or partition level, but rather to overcome limitations at the cluster level. Given the current capabilities of object storage, read/write performance for a single table or partition is unlikely to be a bottleneck; however, for a large-scale Fluss cluster, it can easily become one. Therefore, the core objective here is to distribute the cluster-wide read/write traffic across multiple remote storage systems.
Best regards, Liebing Yu On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 at 16:07, Zhe Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Liebing, Thanks for the clarification. > >1. To clarify, the data is currently split by partition level for > partitioned tables and by table for non-partitioned tables. > > Therefore the main aim of this FIP is improving the speed of read data from > different partitions, store data speed may still limit for a single system? > > Best, > Zhe Wang > > Liebing Yu <[email protected]> 于2026年1月13日周二 19:11写道： > > > Hi Zhe, Thanks for the questions! > > > > 1. To clarify, the data is currently split by partition level for > > partitioned tables and by table for non-partitioned tables. > > > > 2. Regarding RemoteStorageCleaner, you are absolutely right. Supporting > > remote.data.dirs there is necessary for a complete cleanup when a table > is > > dropped. > > > > Thanks for pointing that out! > > > > Best regards, > > Liebing Yu > > > > > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 at 17:02, Zhe Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Liebing, > > > > > > Thanks for driving this, I think it's a really useful feature. > > > I have two small questions: > > > 1. What's the scope for split data in dirs, I see there's a partitionId > > in > > > ZK Data, so the data will spit by partition in different directories, > or > > by > > > bucket? > > > 2. Maybe it needs to support remote.data.dirs in RemoteStorageCleaner? > So > > > we can delete all remoteStorage when delete table. > > > > > > Best, > > > Zhe Wang > > > > > > Liebing Yu <[email protected]> 于2026年1月8日周四 20:10写道： > > > > > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > > > I propose initiating discussion on FIP-25[1]. Fluss leverages remote > > > > storage systems—such as Amazon S3, HDFS, and Alibaba Cloud OSS—to > > > deliver a > > > > cost-efficient, highly available, and fault-tolerant storage solution > > > > compared to local disk. *However, in production environments, we > often > > > find > > > > that the bandwidth of a single remote storage becomes a bottleneck. > > > *Taking > > > > OSS[2] as an example, the typical upload bandwidth limit for a single > > > > account is 20 Gbit/s (Internal) and 10 Gbit/s (Public). So I > initiated > > > this > > > > FIP which aims to introduce support for multiple remote storage paths > > and > > > > enables the dynamic addition of new storage paths without service > > > > interruption. > > > > > > > > Any feedback and suggestions on this proposal are welcome! > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLUSS/FIP-25%3A+Support+Multi-Location+for+Remote+Storage > > > > [2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.alibabacloud.com/help/en/oss/user-guide/limits?spm=a2c63.l28256.help-menu-31815.d_0_0_5.2ac34d06oZYFvK > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Liebing Yu > > > > > > > > > >
