+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

Reply via email to