Hi Jark,

Thanks for laying out such a great vision. Regarding production stability
and maintainability, I have a few considerations:

1. Multi-disk Support
I’m not certain if KV clusters can transition directly from local disks to
cloud-native "zero-disks" as log clusters do. The evolution path might
likely be: single local disk -> multiple local disks -> zero-disk. For KV
clusters, do we need to support multiple local disks to reduce costs before
fully realizing the zero-disk architecture?

2. Physical Isolation at DB/Table Level
This is another critical requirement for KV in production. Unlike log
workloads, KV use cases are highly diverse, necessitating physical-level
isolation to prevent cross-business interference (the "noisy neighbor"
effect).

3. Rate Limiting
We should support traffic throttling/rate limiting at both the database and
table levels.

Best regards,
Liebing Yu


On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 at 15:54, Jark Wu <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> As we step into 2026, I’d like to kick off a collaborative discussion
> around the Fluss Roadmap for 2026 to align our community efforts, set
> clear priorities, and ensure Fluss continues to evolve in a direction
> that best serves real-world use cases, especially in streaming,
> lakehouse, and AI workloads.
>
> I’ve drafted an initial set of themes and focus areas based on recent
> contributions and user feedback:
>
> 👉 https://github.com/apache/fluss/discussions/2342
>
> If you are running Fluss in production or evaluating it for your
> next-gen architecture, your feedback is critical. It's very welcome to
> comment here or in the GitHub Discussion thread about:
>
> * Blockers: What is missing that prevents you from deploying Fluss today?
> * Priorities: Which feature below would provide the most immediate
> value to your team?
> * AI & Lakehouse: Which specific integration do you expect the most?
>
>
> Side note: Once the 2026 roadmap is finalized, I suggest replacing the
> current roadmap page on the website (https://fluss.apache.org/roadmap)
> with this version by linking to the GitHub discussion link. This makes
> it easier to maintain and keep up to date, as it stays naturally
> synchronized with actual GitHub development progress.
>
>
> Best,
> Jark Wu
>

Reply via email to