thanks tony! On Jan 12, 2018 10:48 PM, "Tony Kurc" <trk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I put some of the data I was working with on the wiki - > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/NiFi+1.5.0+nar+files > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Jeremy Dyer <jdy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So my favorite option is Bryan’s option number “three” of using the > > extension registry. Now my thought is do we really need to add complexity > > and do anything in the mean time or just focus on that? Meaning we have > > roughly 500mb of available capacity today so why don’t we spend those man > > hours we would spend on getting the second repo up on the extension > > registry instead? > > > > @Bryan do you have thoughts about the deployment of those bars in the > > extension registry? Since we won’t be able to build the release binary > > anymore would we still need to create separate repos for the nars or > no?? I > > have used the registry a little but I’m not 100% sure on your vision for > > the nars > > > > - Jeremy Dyer > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Jan 12, 2018, at 10:18 PM, Tony Kurc <tk...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > I was looking at nar sizes, and thought some data may be helpful. I > used > > my recent RC1 verification as a basis for getting file sizes, and just > got > > the file size for each file in the assembly named "*.nar". I don't know > > whether the images I pasted in will go through, but I made some graphs.b > > The first is a histogram of nar file size in buckets of 10MB. The second > > basically is similar to a cumulative distribution, the x axis is the > "rank" > > of the nar (smallest to largest), and the y-axis is how what fraction of > > the all the sizes of the nars together are that rank or lower. In other > > words, on the graph, the dot at 60 and ~27 means that the smallest 60 > nars > > contribute only ~27% of the total. Of note, the standard and framework > nars > > are at 83 and 84. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> And of course, as I hit <send> I thought of one more thing. > > >> > > >> We could keep all of the code in 1 git repo (1 project) but the > > >> nifi-assembly part of the build could be broken up to build core NiFi > > >> separately from the tar/zip functional grouping of other NARs. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Michael Moser <moser...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Long term I would also like to see #3 be the solution. I think what > > >> > Joseph N described could be part of the capabilities of #3. > > >> > > > >> > I would like to add a note of caution with respect to reorganizing > and > > >> > releasing extension bundles separately: > > >> > > > >> > - the burden on release manager expands because many more > projects > > >> > have to be released; probably not all on each release cycle but > it > > could > > >> > still be many > > >> > - the chance of accidentally forgetting to release a project in a > > >> > release cycle becomes non-zero > > >> > - sharing code between projects gets a bit harder because you > have > > to > > >> > manage releasing projects in a specific order > > >> > - it becomes harder to find all of the projects that need to > change > > >> > when shared code is added > > >> > - the simple act of finding code becomes harder ... in which > > project > > >> > is that class in? (IDEs like IntelliJ can search in 1 project, > but > > if they > > >> > search across multiple projects, then I haven't learned how) > > >> > > > >> > I used to maintain several nars in separate projects, and recently > > >> > reorganized them into 1 project (following NiFi's multi-module maven > > build) > > >> > and life has become much easier! > > >> > > > >> > -- Mike > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Chris Herrera < > > chris.herrer...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> I very much like the solution proposed by Bryan below. This would > > allow > > >> >> for a cleaner docker image as well, while still proving the > > functionality > > >> >> as needed. For sure, the extension registry will be great, but in > > the mean > > >> >> time this is an adequate mid step. > > >> >> > > >> >> Regards, > > >> >> Chris > > >> >> > > >> >> On Jan 12, 2018, 2:52 PM -0600, Bryan Bende <bbe...@gmail.com>, > > wrote: > > >> >> > Long term I'd like to see the extension registry take form and > have > > >> >> > that be the solution (#3). > > >> >> > > > >> >> > In the more near term, we could separate all of the NARs, except > > for > > >> >> > framework and maybe standard processors & services, into a > separate > > >> >> > git repo. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > In that new git repo we could organize things like Joe N just > > >> >> > described according to some kind of functional grouping. Each of > > these > > >> >> > functional bundles could produce its own tar/zip which we can > make > > >> >> > available for download. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > That would separate the release cycles between core NiFi and the > > other > > >> >> > NARs, and also avoid having any single binary artifact that gets > > too > > >> >> > large. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:43 PM, Joseph Niemiec < > > josephx...@gmail.com> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > > just a random thought. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > Drop In Lib packs... All the Hadoop ones in one package for > > example > > >> >> that > > >> >> > > can be added to a slim Nifi install. Another may be for Cloud, > or > > >> >> Database > > >> >> > > Interactions, Integration (JMS, FTP, etc) of course defining > > these > > >> >> groups > > >> >> > > would be the tricky part... Or perhaps some type of installer > > which > > >> >> allows > > >> >> > > you to elect which packages to download to add to the slim > > install? > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Joe Witt <joe.w...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Team, > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > The NiFi convenience binary (tar.gz/zip) size has grown to > > 1.1GB now > > >> >> > > > in the latest release. Apache infra expanded it to 1.6GB > > allowance > > >> >> > > > for us but has stated this is the last time. > > >> >> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-15816 > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > We need consider: > > >> >> > > > 1) removing old nars/less commonly used nars/or particularly > > massive > > >> >> > > > nars from the assembly we distribute by default. Folks can > > still use > > >> >> > > > these things if they want just not from our convenience > binary > > >> >> > > > 2) collapsing nars with highly repeating deps > > >> >> > > > 3) Getting the extension registry baked into the Flow > Registry > > then > > >> >> > > > moving to separate releases for extension bundles. The main > > release > > >> >> > > > then would be just the NiFi framework. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Any other ideas ? > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'll plan to start identifying candiates for removal soon. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > Thanks > > >> >> > > > Joe > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > -- > > >> >> > > Joseph > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > >
