Hi, Liebing Thanks for the detailed FIP. I have a few questions: 1. Does `remote.data.dirs` support paths with different schemes? For example: ``` remote.data.dirs: oss://bucket1/fluss-data, s3://bucket2/fluss-data ```
2. Should `GetFileSystemSecurityTokenRequest` include partition? The FIP adds `table_path` to the request, but since different partitions may reside on different remote paths (and require different tokens), should the request also include partition information? 3. Just a reminder that `DefaultSecurityTokenManager` will become more complex... This is not a blocker, but worth a poc to recoginize any complexity 4. I want to confirm my understanding: For a partitioned table, does the table itself have a remote dir, AND each partition also has its own remote dir? Or is it: - Non-partitioned table → table-level remote dir - Partitioned table → only partition-level remote dirs (no table-level)? 5. Can old clients (without table path in token request) still read data from new clusters? One possibe solution is : For RPCs without table information, the server returns a token for the first dir in `remote.data.dirs`. Or other ways that allow users to configure the cluster to keep compatibility On 2026/01/21 03:52:29 Zhe Wang wrote: > Thanks for your response, now it looks good to me. > > Best regards, > Zhe Wang > > Liebing Yu <[email protected]> 于2026年1月20日周二 14:29写道： > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
