Hi Chao, > It is true that PMC should pay attention to the direction of the project, so > what direction does this function affect? Does it affect the edge side? What > are the effects of features that can be turned off?
I have claimed my standpoint. I reclaim it here once again and do not want to mention it further: when people heard of "multi-tenancy", the first impression is "this product is for the cloud", which is conflict with IoTDB's description. Best, ----------------------------------- Xiangdong Huang School of Software, Tsinghua University Chao Wang <ccgow...@163.com> 于2023年4月11日周二 13:19写道： > > > I missed this PR. I also do not endorse this PR as I think setting > > the limitation strategy is not what an open source project should > > consider (It is desired only if the system will be unstable if we have > > no such a limitation) > > > Why can't some restriction strategies be added to the open source system to > prevent a single user from affecting the operation of the overall system. At > present, mature open source systems have similar mechanisms, such as doris, > hbase, etc.? In addition, what does this mechanism have to do with whether > the system is open source or not? It itself is a function that a more mature > multi-user system should have. Isn't IoTDB a multi-user system? > > > > > What we can do is avoid the case. But if something has conflict with the > > project's position, we must do some action. > > > Does this function affect the positioning of IoTDB? IoTDB is only for the > edge side? Can't be deployed and used on the cloud side? > > > > Different users have different requirements. But, the PMC need to keep > > awake to know or make a CONSENSUS about where the project will go. > > > It is true that PMC should pay attention to the direction of the project, so > what direction does this function affect? Does it affect the edge side? What > are the effects of features that can be turned off? > > > > > Thanks! > > > Chao Wang > BONC ltd > On 4/11/2023 12:16，Xiangdong Huang<saint...@gmail.com> wrote： > How about the pr https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/9430, limit the > timeseries number of cluster, anyone analyze the side effect about creating a > time series? > > I missed this PR. I also do not endorse this PR as I think setting > the limitation strategy is not what an open source project should > consider (It is desired only if the system will be unstable if we have > no such a limitation) > > Why not discuss before the PR submission, but wait until the PR submission > before discussing, wouldn't it waste the energy of community participants? I > have also seen emails sent before, not without notifying everyone. > > Discussing and notifying on the community is absolutely right. But it > does not mean we have to accept and do not change all the fact that > has happened. > What we can do is avoid the case. But if something has conflict with > the project's position, we must do some action. > > Another point is that the multi-tenancy function may be a function required > by other companies' IOTDB releases, but will other people's contributions to > the community affect the development of the community? I think it will be > more conducive to the development of community diversity. > > Different users have different requirements. But, the PMC need to keep > awake to know or make a CONSENSUS about where the project will go. > That is why I start this discussion though I know it will cause many > complaint. > > Best, > ----------------------------------- > Xiangdong Huang > School of Software, Tsinghua University > > Chao Wang <ccgow...@163.com> 于2023年4月11日周二 09:16写道： > > Hi, Xiangdong, > > > what is the side effect when we manually create a time series? > > > How about the pr https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/9430, limit the > timeseries number of cluster, anyone analyze the side effect about creating a > time series? > > > This discuss is not for getting "+1" or "-1" (though anyone can reply > the vote..). > I just want to discuss that do we REALLY consider and analyze the > feature and the implementation carefully? > > > Why not discuss before the PR submission, but wait until the PR submission > before discussing, wouldn't it waste the energy of community participants? I > have also seen emails sent before, not without notifying everyone. > > > > > In addition, I think Jialin's suggestion is more reasonable. The description > of this function may not be particularly clear. It can be said in another > way, such as resource control. However, reverting will undoubtedly be harmful > to the community, will discourage the enthusiasm of community participants, > and is very unfriendly to community participants. If in doubt, I think it > would be better to raise it as soon as possible, instead of waiting for > others to finish their hard work before questioning. > > > Another point is that the multi-tenancy function may be a function required > by other companies' IOTDB releases, but will other people's contributions to > the community affect the development of the community? I think it will be > more conducive to the development of community diversity. > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Chao Wang > BONC ltd > ccgow...@163.com > On 4/10/2023 23:45，Xiangdong Huang<saint...@gmail.com> wrote： > Besides the above, when we merge this pr, we posted the design in the > feishu[4] and discussed it online as least two times, and emailed and > discussed it with everyone[5], it has been passed 10 days. > > I think I know this and I have shown my concern about the possible > harm of this featuer to IoTDB's edge mode... > > 1) how many side-effects the feature will bring; > We have done some tests under[1], which says with 20 databases and 1 user > when we set `quota_enable` to true to enable the multi-tenancy feature, the > write performance is only slowed down 1.75%, the read latency has not much > difference, we will do more tests to show the side-effects in the feature. > > The experiment is rather simple... > When we really want to show the added codes having no side-effects, > all the exepriemnt settings should follow a rule that how to fully > expose the possible problems. > > For example, as mult-tenancy limits the available # of devices, > timeseries, and the spaces of disk, it should have side-effect on > create new device/timeseries, and writing new data. > So, > - what is the side effect when we manually create a time series? > - what is the side effect when we use automatical creating a time series? > - what is the side effect when we write new data? (as the data can be > compressed when it is flushed on disk in async mode, how to check the > disk space?). Besides, as it impaces each write operation, we need to > focus on write operstions which's batchsize=1. > > This discuss is not for getting "+1" or "-1" (though anyone can reply > the vote..). > I just want to discuss that do we REALLY consider and analyze the > feature and the implementation carefully? > > If not, then this big feature is not the time to be merged (and I will > call a vote then), and then let's rethink it and make it really > available together. > If yes, we also need to rethink it and improve it for better performance. > > > Best, > ----------------------------------- > Xiangdong Huang > School of Software, Tsinghua University > > Chao Wang <ccgow...@163.com> 于2023年4月10日周一 19:14写道： > > Agree with Houliang's opinion. > > > Thanks! > > > Chao Wang > BONC ltd > On 4/10/2023 19:01，Houliang Qi<neuyi...@163.com> wrote： > -1 > > First of all, thanks Xiangdong for pointing out IoTDB's Charter. > > "RESOLVED, that the Apache IoTDB Project be and hereby is > responsible for the creation and maintenance of software > related to an IoT native database with high performance > for data management and analysis, on the edge and the cloud." > > As the charter post, IoTDB can be deployed in the cloud, this is why we > deploy the multi-tenancy feature. > > The cloud can be a public or private cloud if we can deploy only one IoTDB > cluster, and manage multi databases and users with different resources, which > will simplify the maintenance. > > -> 1) how many side-effects the feature will bring; > > We have done some tests under[1], which says with 20 databases and 1 user > when we set `quota_enable` to true to enable the multi-tenancy feature, the > write performance is only slowed down 1.75%, the read latency has not much > difference, we will do more tests to show the side-effects in the feature. > > -> 2) how to reduce the effect when IoTDB is deployed on the edge. > > We supply one switch about this feature, called `quota_enable`, by default > this value is false, so it has no effect when IoTDB is deployed on the edge. > This also answers Jinrui's doubt. > > -> 3) some checks failed on WinOS, are they irrelevant? > > No, I think they are not irrelevant, the false check message is about the > Compaction module, and > I see the former pr[2][3] which have been merged 4 days ago has the same > issue, so I suspect that the compaction module has occasional bugs > > -> 4) The feature SHOULD be discussed carefully in the community, rather that > submit PRs and merged after some reviews. > > Besides the above, when we merge this pr, we posted the design in the > feishu[4] and discussed it online as least two times, and emailed and > discussed it with everyone[5], it has been passed 10 days. > > > The IoTDB community is open and different opinions are welcome. After all, we > all have the same original intention of wanting IoTDB's features to be more > diverse. > > [1] https://apache-iotdb.feishu.cn/docx/DbqCd8t3EoxlCFx1yYicd9N4n4s > [2] https://github.com/apache/iotdb/actions/runs/4625220921/jobs/8181102446 > [3] https://github.com/apache/iotdb/actions/runs/4531046594/jobs/7980725316 > [4] https://apache-iotdb.feishu.cn/docx/doxcnKOYKDmJ40FpVnVsPMd3nTg > [5] https://lists.apache.org/thread/y6dqcm2o7qk0nbkllb61bp8cv6d3m1h7 > > > > > > Thanks, > --------------------------------------- > Houliang Qi > BONC, Ltd > > > ---- Replied Message ---- > | From | 张金瑞<329920...@qq.com.INVALID> | > | Date | 04/10/2023 15:03 | > | To | dev<dev@iotdb.apache.org> | > | Subject | Re：[discuss] consider revert the feature of multi-tenancy | > +1, > > > Agree with Xiangdong's opinion. > And on the other hand, checking this PR's side effects may take lot of > time and during this period, there may be lots of users using latest > code to deploy/upgrade their systems. So the best practice is reverting this > PR until the side-effect is eliminated > > > > Thanks, > Zhang Jinrui，Apache IoTDB PMC > > > > Original > > > > From:"Xiangdong Huang"< saint...@gmail.com >; > > Date:2023/4/10 10:05 > > To:"dev"< dev@iotdb.apache.org >; > > Subject:[discuss] consider revert the feature of multi-tenancy > > > Hi all, > > I see the multi-tenancy feature is merged, and several committers made > a lot of contributions on that. > > As multi-tenancy is quite a big feature, which may change IoTDB's > position. The feature SHOULD be discussed carefully in the community, > rather that submit PRs and merged after some reviews. > > Therefore, I call to revert the PR and discuss ASAP about the feature > after that. > > At least, the proposer need to answer the following questions, > 1) how many side-effect the feature will bring; > 2) how to reduce the effect when IoTDB is deployed on the edge. > 3) some checks failed on WinOS, are they irrelevant? > > I don't mean of rejecting any big contribution to IoTDB or harming the > community's diversity, but accepting this feature is really big > decision and it deserves us to take time to deliberate. > > > Attached IoTDB's Charter: > "RESOLVED, that the Apache IoTDB Project be and hereby is > responsible for the creation and maintenance of software > related to an IoT native database with high performance > for data management and analysis, on the edge and the cloud." > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/9534/checks > > Best, > ----------------------------------- > Xiangdong Huang > School of Software, Tsinghua University
