This is a bit off the top of my head, but I'd I agree with pretty much all of points on what's bringing a lot of overhead. There's probably also a worthwhile discussion about what value we're shooting for the project to provide to people that influences what stays/goes.
Thinking out loud a bit - Dropping Storm and moving to Spark drops the very hard to tune/manage/troubleshoot Storm. - Dropping the UIs (and making SQL the external interface) pretty much implies dropping the REST APIs and ES/Solr. ES/Solr have been a giant source of dev heartache on the project and they exist primarily for the real time use case. People can build whatever UIs or use existing tools against Parquet/Hive/whatever. - Dropping Ambari. It's a complex beast to install because of how many components we have. Dropping the above makes our install much easier and should alleviate the need for a complex installer. At that point, we're basically left with - Some Spark for parse -> enrich -> output - The profiler - Stellar - Probably some other misc stuff (sensors, bro kafka plugging, etc.) At a glance, that seems almost an order of magnitude smaller than what we currently try to handle. I'm not really sure what an appropriate way to handle the profiler is. I've barely touched the code for it, so I anything I say is a vague guess. On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 7:38 PM Yerex, Tom <tom.ye...@ubc.ca> wrote: > To me Metron is big and broad in the scope of technology required to get > it running. If things were more modular that would go a long way to > reducing the learning curve or at least putting it into smaller bites (and > it might encourage more people to get involved). > > If the UI were an add-on module in another project, it would have made it > easier for me and it could also encourage my hypothetical buddy who is a > web developer expert to get involved since he could focus on the web-ui > module instead of trying to tackle all the other pieces that are probably > not part of his bailiwick. > > Stellar is very intriguing, maybe that is not unique to Metron? The > architecture of Metron with respect to parsing, enriching, etc., makes a > lot of sense to anyone I talk with. These two aspects of Metron seem like > standout examples that make for a powerful platform to develop on. > > Thanks for continuing this discussion, > > Tom. > > > On 2020-04-08 15:32:46-07:00 Casey Stella wrote: > > As far as I know there is no minimum bar of development activity to keep a > project open. I think we would all be grateful for any investment that you > or your organization would want to make. > It also occurs to me that your observation is absolutely spot on: we have > a LOT of moving parts. > I see some deficiencies here: > > * We depend on a lot of the various hadoop ecosystem projects and they > have to work together very precisely: > * This makes for a system that is hard to install. > * This also makes for a system which is hard to tune/manage > * We have a large surface area of coverage > * We have an installer, backend system and front-end UI, which > stretches our developers a bit thin, especially since there isn't even > interest in those systems > > Perhaps a reconsideration of the scope and technologies that we use would > be merited? If we were to decide to, for instance: > > * Consolidate scope: focus on a viable backend/API rather than a UI > * Consolidate technology: reposition ourselves on top of Spark as a > consolidated streaming/batch system > * Make SQL our external interface: write out to parquet + the Hive > metastore and let users pin up presto tables or hive tables as they see fit > > This might reduce some of our surface area and make it more viable to get > started? > Anyway, just some thoughts. > Casey > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 6:20 PM Yerex, Tom <tom.ye...@ubc.ca<mailto: > tom.ye...@ubc.ca>> wrote: > Hi Casey, > > I'm new here and new to contributing to an open source project. Thus far > my contribution has been questions, however the steep learning curve has > had me working to understand all the moving parts for the last 18 months > and I see that as a big investment by my organization. > > What is a level that would be viable? > > If my organization were to contribute I don't know that it would be soon > enough or at the volume that is recognized as viable, which is why I ask > the question. > > > On 2020-04-08 15:05:51-07:00 Casey Stella wrote: > > Hi all, > > When composing the board report today, I realized that we have effectively > had no development in the last quarter on this project. Please be aware > that I say this without a shred of blame or judgement (especially so > considering I have not contributed in a long time). That being said, I > would like to pose the question to the community: > > Do we feel that this project is viable? If so, how are we going to spur > new contributions? If not, then should we begin the process to fold the > project? > > > Best, > > Casey > >
