Re: Rename MultiLeaderConsensus to IoTConsensus
+1 for renaming. > If we now rename MultiLeaderConsensus to IoTConsensus, what should we call it > in the future when we finds a better tradeoff between consistency and > performance? maybe finally we will have a IoT consensus protocol family... Best, --- Xiangdong Huang School of Software, Tsinghua University 黄向东 清华大学 软件学院 谭新宇 <1025599...@qq.com.invalid> 于2022年11月26日周六 17:21写道： > > Hi， > > For these two reasons, I strongly agree with the name change. > > Users do not need to know the name of MultiLeader which is strongly related > to the implementation. However, as the consensus module is currently an > extensible framework, more consensus algorithms may be integrated in the > future. At present, RatisConsensus is the consensus algorithm with the > strongest consistency and the worst performance, while MultiLeaderConsensus > is the consensus algorithm with the weakest consistency and the strongest > performance. There may be some new tradeoff between consistency and > performance in the future. > > If we now rename MultiLeaderConsensus to IoTConsensus, what should we call it > in the future when we finds a better tradeoff between consistency and > performance? > > Thanks > ——— > Xinyu Tan > > > 2022年11月26日 11:20，Jialin Qiao 写道： > > > > Hi, > > > > We plan to rename MultiLeaderConsensus to IoTConsensus > > > > 1. MultiLeader does not have many degrees of identification, and IoT > > is our characteristic. > > 2. The abbreviation of MultiLeader is ML, which is conflict with > > Machine Learning, which we may introduce in IoTDB in the future. > > > > Thanks, > > — > > Jialin Qiao > > Apache IoTDB PMC >
Building a PLC4X and IoTDB Historian?
Hi all, I am currently thinking, if it wouldn’t be a good idea to build something like an open-source Historian based on PLC4X and IoTDB. For those of you, who don’t know what a Historian is. In the manufacturing industry they have these extremely expensive servers (usually you buy them as a bundle of hard- and software). These servers are nothing else than a really crappy and brutally expensive Database for storing Time-Series data. The thing is most commercial products are currently really having trouble to keep up with the increasing amount of Data being sent. So instead of suggesting building an Historian at each customer’s site, I thought: Perhaps a ready-to-use solution based on open-source would be a good idea. Not 100% sure where I’d locate such an initiative, but I would tend to see it more on the Database side. I think IoTDB would be the perfect storage system, all we seem to need is some sort of rest-interface that matches the industry standards for querying the information and on the other side something like PLC4X to fill the database. Here some examples: https://www.ge.com/digital/documentation/historian/version80/c_historian_apis_overview.html https://cdn.logic-control.com/docs/aveva/historian/HistorianRetrieval.pdf What do you folks think? Chris
Re: Rename MultiLeaderConsensus to IoTConsensus
Hi， For these two reasons, I strongly agree with the name change. Users do not need to know the name of MultiLeader which is strongly related to the implementation. However, as the consensus module is currently an extensible framework, more consensus algorithms may be integrated in the future. At present, RatisConsensus is the consensus algorithm with the strongest consistency and the worst performance, while MultiLeaderConsensus is the consensus algorithm with the weakest consistency and the strongest performance. There may be some new tradeoff between consistency and performance in the future. If we now rename MultiLeaderConsensus to IoTConsensus, what should we call it in the future when we finds a better tradeoff between consistency and performance? Thanks ——— Xinyu Tan > 2022年11月26日 11:20，Jialin Qiao 写道： > > Hi, > > We plan to rename MultiLeaderConsensus to IoTConsensus > > 1. MultiLeader does not have many degrees of identification, and IoT > is our characteristic. > 2. The abbreviation of MultiLeader is ML, which is conflict with > Machine Learning, which we may introduce in IoTDB in the future. > > Thanks, > — > Jialin Qiao > Apache IoTDB PMC
