@Gabe - Thanks for chiming in on this important discussion. I hope other users
who are looking for a multi-tenant deployment do the same. As Niko mentioned,
the proposal is not to have a separate database per tenant, but rather having
isolation with other means, while giving the benefit of
Thanks for the reply Gabe! I'm glad you're interested in the topic and weighing
in for your company.
> @Niko – If I misstated your intent, I hope you will clarify that for me.
> Thanks!
The intent (DB isolation being critical) was there, but the approach you
attributed to me is not actually
The outcome that Niko brings up is that any tenants should not be able to
interact with metadata that is from other tenants within the Airflow
environment. If we focus on that as an outcome, what are the various options
which would support that goal?
1. A separate db per tenant, as Niko
+1 (binding)
Checked reproducibility, signatures, checksums, licences. Used it with the
helm chart with a few different configs. All looks good!
My 2 cents: it must be possible to opt-out, preferably it should be
possible to deploy Airflow instances without bundling the telemetry library
dependencies. Other than that I don't mind it being e.g. optional provider.
śr., 3 kwi 2024, 22:42 użytkownik Hussein Awala napisał:
> > I'd like to
+1 for this. I do not yet have enough chance to experience many job failures,
but it won’t harm us to test them out. Plus, it saves some of the cost.
Best,
Wei
> On Apr 5, 2024, at 11:36 PM, Jarek Potiuk wrote:
>
> Seeing no big "no's" - I will prepare and run the experiment - starting
> some
Seeing no big "no's" - I will prepare and run the experiment - starting
some time next week, after we get 2.9.0 out - I do not want to break
anything there. In the meantime, preparatory PR to add "use self-hosted
runners" label is out https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/38779
On Fri, Apr 5,
+1 with trying this out. I agree with keeping the canary builds self-hosted in
order to validate the usage for the PRs.
-- Rajesh
From: Jarek Potiuk
Reply-To: "dev@airflow.apache.org"
Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 at 8:36 AM
To: "dev@airflow.apache.org"
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [COURRIEL
Yeah. Valid concerns Hussein.
And I am happy to share some more information on that. I did not want to
put all of that in the original email, but I see that might be interesting
for you and possibly others.
I am closely following the numbers now. One of the reasons I am doing /
proposing it now
I'm +0. Definitely don't see any issue with seeing the changes.
--
Regards,
Aritra Basu
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024, 3:37 PM Amogh Desai wrote:
> +1 I like the idea.
> Looking forward to seeing the difference.
>
> Thanks & Regards,
> Amogh Desai
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 3:54 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis
>
Although 900 runners seem like a lot, they are shared among the Apache
organization's 2.2k repositories, of course only a few of them are active
(let's say 50), and some of them use an external CI tool for big jobs (eg:
Kafka uses Jenkins, Hudi uses Azure pipelines), but we have other very
active
+1 I like the idea.
Looking forward to seeing the difference.
Thanks & Regards,
Amogh Desai
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 3:54 AM Ferruzzi, Dennis
wrote:
> Interested in seeing the difference, +1
>
>
> - ferruzzi
>
>
>
> From: Oliveira, Niko
> Sent: Thursday, April
+1 non binding
Tested a few example DAGs and tested to see if my changes work as expected.
It looks good to me.
Thanks & Regards,
Amogh Desai
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 4:04 AM Jarek Potiuk wrote:
> +1 (binding) - checked reproducibility, signatures, checksums, licences - >
> all good. Installed
13 matches
Mail list logo
