#2 would definitely be convenient. Maybe also include an option whether to recurse down through nested process groups, or just apply to the selected process group.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 at 06:05, Bryan Bende <[email protected]> wrote: > Makes sense. For # 2, it is still per queue with an "Apply All" > convenience right? Just trying to differentiate with prioritizing > across all queues. > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 3:22 PM Ryan Hendrickson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I see two things as particularly useful... > > > > 1) Default Prioritizer for new Relationships (Bound to a process group, > > similar to how the "Default FlowFile Expiration" can be changed). > > 2) Applying a prioritizer to an entire Process Group as a one-time > action. > > > > Some background... I'm hand-converting two super-legacy v0.7.3 canvases > to > > v1.15.3. Part of that is applying flow priorities all over the place in > > the new system. Probably not a common task, but I could see this feature > > being useful for other week-to-week work too. > > > > Ryan > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:32 PM Bryan Bende <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think there are two different concepts here... The original > > > discussion is just about default settings for new connections. The > > > idea in NIFI-6831 is about prioritizing data across multiple queues, > > > either for all of nifi or within a given process group. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 1:13 PM Mark Bean <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > We experimented with the idea of a custom "Global Prioritizer". One > of > > > the > > > > problems with this approach is that it ran the risk of breaking the > > > > multi-tenancy philosophy. If there were a truly global priority, it > would > > > > affect all flows, each may have different priority rules. However, if > > > this > > > > could be applied only at the process group level, it might have legs. > > > > > > > > You can follow the initial approach to such a mechanism in the JIRA > > > ticket. > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-6831 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12:06 PM Ryan Hendrickson < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I just went to the config button in my process group, hoping to > set all > > > > > relationships in there to priority first.... Lots of right > clicking & > > > > > dragging instead. > > > > > > > > > > +1 for an approach like that. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 11:44 AM Joe Witt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello > > > > > > > > > > > > Certainly the spirit of this is a good idea. Would likely need > to > > > > > approach > > > > > > it at a more flow/process group centric level. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 8:34 AM Ryan Hendrickson < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would be very helpful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 4:51 PM Salvatore Foss < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you see much value in being able to specify an > instance-wide > > > (or > > > > > > > > cluster-wide) default prioritizer for all connections that > do not > > > > > have > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > manually set? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Along with the the following properties in nifi.properties: > > > > > > > > nifi.queue.backpressure.count=10000 > > > > > > > > nifi.queue.backpressure.size=1 GB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to see see something like > > > > > > > > nifi.queue.prioritizer.default=org.apache.nifi.prioritize. > > > > > > > > PriorityAttributePrioritizer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts? My only concern would be if connection prioritizers > > > have a > > > > > > > > noticeable impact on system resources. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
