Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman" <merrim...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> > > obsolete by the unified topology.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fellow Metronians,
> > > >
> > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number of
> months
> > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to be a time that
> I
> > > have
> > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified one. Here are
> some
> > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Unified topology performs better.
> > > > 2. The configuration, especially for performance tuning is much,
> > much
> > > > simpler in the unified model.
> > > > 3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
> > > > 4. One of the first activities for any install is that we spend
> time
> > > > instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
> > > > 5. One less moving part to maintain.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join topology and
> > make
> > > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
