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
    > > > >
    > > >
    > >
    >
    

Reply via email to