+1 totally agree. Jon
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian <asubraman...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Jon Zeolla
