Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-29 Thread Michael Miklavcic
Hey @Ali - check this out - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1286.
Obviously, we're not going to have all of the same timestamp properties in
the unified topology since there are no more splitters and joiners, but
this should fill in the outstanding gaps around the adapter timestamps. I
see this as a short-term stopgap solution for metrics. I add these
properties back in with the caveat that users should expect them to be
deprecated at some point in favor of a more robust metrics solution. Let me
know if there's anything you feel we're still missing.

Best,
Mike Miklavcic

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 11:01 AM Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for pointing that out Ali. I created a ticket to track it -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1889
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:51 PM Ali Nazemian 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> One thing to point out here is there were a few timestamp fields that
>> exist for Split-join enrichment topology that haven't been made to the
>> unified one. For example, there is no threat intel bolt timestamp. There
>> might be some SLA related use cases regarding these timestamp fields that
>> might be nice to have before depreciation of the split-join one. Generally
>> speaking, makes sense to deprecate split-join topology, though.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ali
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 3:40 AM James Sirota  wrote:
>>
>> > This is excellent work, Mike and long overdue.  Thanks for doing this
>> >
>> > 05.11.2018, 16:46, "Michael Miklavcic" :
>> > > The PR has now been merged into master and closed.
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1855
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:47 PM Michael Miklavcic <
>> > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>  PR is out here - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1252
>> > >>
>> > >>  I made the unified enrichment topology the new default and marked
>> the
>> > >>  split-join topology as deprecated in various parts of the
>> > documentation. I
>> > >>  think we should have a release with the deprecation notes and new
>> > default
>> > >>  and then move to remove split-join entirely shortly thereafter.
>> > >>
>> > >>  Best,
>> > >>  Mike
>> > >>
>> > >>  On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:47 AM Mohan Venkateshaiah <
>> > >>  mvenkatesha...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>>  +1 (non-binding)
>> > >>>
>> > >>>  Thanks
>> > >>>  Mohan DV
>> > >>>
>> > >>>  On 11/2/18, 3:29 PM, "zeo...@gmail.com"  wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>  +1 totally agree.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>  Jon
>> > >>>
>> > >>>  On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian <
>> > >>>  asubraman...@hortonworks.com>
>> > >>>  wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>  > Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
>> > >>>  >
>> > >>>  > On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman" 
>> > wrote:
>> > >>>  >
>> > >>>  > +1
>> > >>>  >
>> > >>>  > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella <
>> ceste...@gmail.com
>> > >>>  >
>> > >>>  > wrote:
>> > >>>  >
>> > >>>  > > +1
>> > >>>  > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen <
>> n...@nickallen.org>
>> > >>>  wrote:
>> > >>>  > >
>> > >>>  > > > +1
>> > >>>  > > >
>> > >>>  > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet <
>> > >>>  justinjl...@gmail.com>
>> > >>>  > wrote:
>> > >>>  > > >
>> > >>>  > > > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join
>> topology
>> > >>>  isn't
>> > >>>  > made
>> > >>>  > > > > obsolete by the unified topology.
>> > >>>  > > > >
>> > >>>  > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
>> > >>>  > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>  > > > >
>> > >>>  > > > > > Fellow Metronians,
>> > >>>  > > > > >
>> > >>>  > > > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for
>> a
>> > >>>  number
>> > >>>  > of
>> > >>>  > > months
>> > >>>  > > > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to
>> > >>>  be a
>> > >>>  > time that
>> > >>>  > > I
>> > >>>  > > > > have
>> > >>>  > > > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified
>> > >>>  one. Here
>> > >>>  > are
>> > >>>  > > some
>> > >>>  > > > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
>> > >>>  > > > > >
>> > >>>  > > > > > 1. Unified topology performs better.
>> > >>>  > > > > > 2. The configuration, especially for performance
>> > >>>  tuning is
>> > >>>  > much,
>> > >>>  > > > much
>> > >>>  > > > > > simpler in the unified model.
>> > >>>  > > > > > 3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
>> > >>>  > > > > > 4. One of the first activities for any install is
>> > >>>  that we
>> > >>>  > spend
>> > >>>  > > time
>> > >>>  > > > > > instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
>> > >>>  > > > > > 5. One less moving part to maintain.
>> > >>>  > > > > >
>> > >>>  > > > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-20 Thread Michael Miklavcic
Thanks for pointing that out Ali. I created a ticket to track it -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1889

On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:51 PM Ali Nazemian  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> One thing to point out here is there were a few timestamp fields that
> exist for Split-join enrichment topology that haven't been made to the
> unified one. For example, there is no threat intel bolt timestamp. There
> might be some SLA related use cases regarding these timestamp fields that
> might be nice to have before depreciation of the split-join one. Generally
> speaking, makes sense to deprecate split-join topology, though.
>
> Cheers,
> Ali
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 3:40 AM James Sirota  wrote:
>
> > This is excellent work, Mike and long overdue.  Thanks for doing this
> >
> > 05.11.2018, 16:46, "Michael Miklavcic" :
> > > The PR has now been merged into master and closed.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1855
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:47 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>  PR is out here - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1252
> > >>
> > >>  I made the unified enrichment topology the new default and marked the
> > >>  split-join topology as deprecated in various parts of the
> > documentation. I
> > >>  think we should have a release with the deprecation notes and new
> > default
> > >>  and then move to remove split-join entirely shortly thereafter.
> > >>
> > >>  Best,
> > >>  Mike
> > >>
> > >>  On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:47 AM Mohan Venkateshaiah <
> > >>  mvenkatesha...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>  +1 (non-binding)
> > >>>
> > >>>  Thanks
> > >>>  Mohan DV
> > >>>
> > >>>  On 11/2/18, 3:29 PM, "zeo...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>  +1 totally agree.
> > >>>
> > >>>  Jon
> > >>>
> > >>>  On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian <
> > >>>  asubraman...@hortonworks.com>
> > >>>  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>  > Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
> > >>>  >
> > >>>  > On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman" 
> > wrote:
> > >>>  >
> > >>>  > +1
> > >>>  >
> > >>>  > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella <
> ceste...@gmail.com
> > >>>  >
> > >>>  > wrote:
> > >>>  >
> > >>>  > > +1
> > >>>  > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen  >
> > >>>  wrote:
> > >>>  > >
> > >>>  > > > +1
> > >>>  > > >
> > >>>  > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet <
> > >>>  justinjl...@gmail.com>
> > >>>  > wrote:
> > >>>  > > >
> > >>>  > > > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join
> topology
> > >>>  isn't
> > >>>  > made
> > >>>  > > > > obsolete by the unified topology.
> > >>>  > > > >
> > >>>  > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > >>>  > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>  > > > >
> > >>>  > > > > > Fellow Metronians,
> > >>>  > > > > >
> > >>>  > > > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a
> > >>>  number
> > >>>  > of
> > >>>  > > months
> > >>>  > > > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to
> > >>>  be a
> > >>>  > time that
> > >>>  > > I
> > >>>  > > > > have
> > >>>  > > > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified
> > >>>  one. Here
> > >>>  > are
> > >>>  > > some
> > >>>  > > > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
> > >>>  > > > > >
> > >>>  > > > > > 1. Unified topology performs better.
> > >>>  > > > > > 2. The configuration, especially for performance
> > >>>  tuning is
> > >>>  > much,
> > >>>  > > > much
> > >>>  > > > > > simpler in the unified model.
> > >>>  > > > > > 3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
> > >>>  > > > > > 4. One of the first activities for any install is
> > >>>  that we
> > >>>  > spend
> > >>>  > > time
> > >>>  > > > > > instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
> > >>>  > > > > > 5. One less moving part to maintain.
> > >>>  > > > > >
> > >>>  > > > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join
> > >>>  > topology and
> > >>>  > > > make
> > >>>  > > > > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
> > >>>  > > > > >
> > >>>  > > > > > Best,
> > >>>  > > > > > Mike
> > >>>  > > > > >
> > >>>  > > > >
> > >>>  > > >
> > >>>  > >
> > >>>  >
> > >>>  >
> > >>>  > --
> > >>>
> > >>>  Jon Zeolla
> >
> > ---
> > Thank you,
> >
> > James Sirota
> > PMC- Apache Metron
> > jsirota AT apache DOT org
> >
> >
>
> --
> A.Nazemian
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-19 Thread Ali Nazemian
Hi,

One thing to point out here is there were a few timestamp fields that
exist for Split-join enrichment topology that haven't been made to the
unified one. For example, there is no threat intel bolt timestamp. There
might be some SLA related use cases regarding these timestamp fields that
might be nice to have before depreciation of the split-join one. Generally
speaking, makes sense to deprecate split-join topology, though.

Cheers,
Ali

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 3:40 AM James Sirota  wrote:

> This is excellent work, Mike and long overdue.  Thanks for doing this
>
> 05.11.2018, 16:46, "Michael Miklavcic" :
> > The PR has now been merged into master and closed.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1855
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:47 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  PR is out here - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1252
> >>
> >>  I made the unified enrichment topology the new default and marked the
> >>  split-join topology as deprecated in various parts of the
> documentation. I
> >>  think we should have a release with the deprecation notes and new
> default
> >>  and then move to remove split-join entirely shortly thereafter.
> >>
> >>  Best,
> >>  Mike
> >>
> >>  On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:47 AM Mohan Venkateshaiah <
> >>  mvenkatesha...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>  +1 (non-binding)
> >>>
> >>>  Thanks
> >>>  Mohan DV
> >>>
> >>>  On 11/2/18, 3:29 PM, "zeo...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  +1 totally agree.
> >>>
> >>>  Jon
> >>>
> >>>  On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian <
> >>>  asubraman...@hortonworks.com>
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  > Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
> >>>  >
> >>>  > On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman" 
> wrote:
> >>>  >
> >>>  > +1
> >>>  >
> >>>  > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella  >>>  >
> >>>  > wrote:
> >>>  >
> >>>  > > +1
> >>>  > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen 
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>  > >
> >>>  > > > +1
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet <
> >>>  justinjl...@gmail.com>
> >>>  > wrote:
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > > > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology
> >>>  isn't
> >>>  > made
> >>>  > > > > obsolete by the unified topology.
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> >>>  > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > Fellow Metronians,
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a
> >>>  number
> >>>  > of
> >>>  > > months
> >>>  > > > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to
> >>>  be a
> >>>  > time that
> >>>  > > I
> >>>  > > > > have
> >>>  > > > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified
> >>>  one. Here
> >>>  > are
> >>>  > > some
> >>>  > > > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > 1. Unified topology performs better.
> >>>  > > > > > 2. The configuration, especially for performance
> >>>  tuning is
> >>>  > much,
> >>>  > > > much
> >>>  > > > > > simpler in the unified model.
> >>>  > > > > > 3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
> >>>  > > > > > 4. One of the first activities for any install is
> >>>  that we
> >>>  > spend
> >>>  > > time
> >>>  > > > > > instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
> >>>  > > > > > 5. One less moving part to maintain.
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join
> >>>  > topology and
> >>>  > > > make
> >>>  > > > > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > > > Best,
> >>>  > > > > > Mike
> >>>  > > > > >
> >>>  > > > >
> >>>  > > >
> >>>  > >
> >>>  >
> >>>  >
> >>>  > --
> >>>
> >>>  Jon Zeolla
>
> ---
> Thank you,
>
> James Sirota
> PMC- Apache Metron
> jsirota AT apache DOT org
>
>

-- 
A.Nazemian


Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-15 Thread James Sirota
This is excellent work, Mike and long overdue.  Thanks for doing this

05.11.2018, 16:46, "Michael Miklavcic" :
> The PR has now been merged into master and closed.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1855
>
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:47 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  PR is out here - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1252
>>
>>  I made the unified enrichment topology the new default and marked the
>>  split-join topology as deprecated in various parts of the documentation. I
>>  think we should have a release with the deprecation notes and new default
>>  and then move to remove split-join entirely shortly thereafter.
>>
>>  Best,
>>  Mike
>>
>>  On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:47 AM Mohan Venkateshaiah <
>>  mvenkatesha...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  +1 (non-binding)
>>>
>>>  Thanks
>>>  Mohan DV
>>>
>>>  On 11/2/18, 3:29 PM, "zeo...@gmail.com"  wrote:
>>>
>>>  +1 totally agree.
>>>
>>>  Jon
>>>
>>>  On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian <
>>>  asubraman...@hortonworks.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  > Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
>>>  >
>>>  > On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman"  wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  > +1
>>>  >
>>>  > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella >>  >
>>>  > wrote:
>>>  >
>>>  > > +1
>>>  > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen 
>>>  wrote:
>>>  > >
>>>  > > > +1
>>>  > > >
>>>  > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet <
>>>  justinjl...@gmail.com>
>>>  > wrote:
>>>  > > >
>>>  > > > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology
>>>  isn't
>>>  > made
>>>  > > > > obsolete by the unified topology.
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
>>>  > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > > > > Fellow Metronians,
>>>  > > > > >
>>>  > > > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a
>>>  number
>>>  > of
>>>  > > months
>>>  > > > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to
>>>  be a
>>>  > time that
>>>  > > I
>>>  > > > > have
>>>  > > > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified
>>>  one. Here
>>>  > are
>>>  > > some
>>>  > > > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
>>>  > > > > >
>>>  > > > > > 1. Unified topology performs better.
>>>  > > > > > 2. The configuration, especially for performance
>>>  tuning is
>>>  > much,
>>>  > > > much
>>>  > > > > > simpler in the unified model.
>>>  > > > > > 3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
>>>  > > > > > 4. One of the first activities for any install is
>>>  that we
>>>  > spend
>>>  > > time
>>>  > > > > > instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
>>>  > > > > > 5. One less moving part to maintain.
>>>  > > > > >
>>>  > > > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join
>>>  > topology and
>>>  > > > make
>>>  > > > > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
>>>  > > > > >
>>>  > > > > > Best,
>>>  > > > > > Mike
>>>  > > > > >
>>>  > > > >
>>>  > > >
>>>  > >
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>  > --
>>>
>>>  Jon Zeolla

--- 
Thank you,

James Sirota
PMC- Apache Metron
jsirota AT apache DOT org



Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-05 Thread Michael Miklavcic
The PR has now been merged into master and closed.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1855


On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:47 PM Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> PR is out here - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1252
>
> I made the unified enrichment topology the new default and marked the
> split-join topology as deprecated in various parts of the documentation. I
> think we should have a release with the deprecation notes and new default
> and then move to remove split-join entirely shortly thereafter.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:47 AM Mohan Venkateshaiah <
> mvenkatesha...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> Thanks
>> Mohan DV
>>
>> On 11/2/18, 3:29 PM, "zeo...@gmail.com"  wrote:
>>
>> +1 totally agree.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian <
>> asubraman...@hortonworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
>> >
>> > On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman"  wrote:
>> >
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > +1
>> > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > +1
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet <
>> justinjl...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology
>> isn't
>> > made
>> > > > > obsolete by the unified topology.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
>> > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Fellow Metronians,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a
>> number
>> > of
>> > > months
>> > > > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to
>> be a
>> > time that
>> > > I
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified
>> one. Here
>> > are
>> > > some
>> > > > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >1. Unified topology performs better.
>> > > > > >2. The configuration, especially for performance
>> tuning is
>> > much,
>> > > > much
>> > > > > >simpler in the unified model.
>> > > > > >3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
>> > > > > >4. One of the first activities for any install is
>> that we
>> > spend
>> > > time
>> > > > > >instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
>> > > > > >5. One less moving part to maintain.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join
>> > topology and
>> > > > make
>> > > > > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > Mike
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>>
>> Jon Zeolla
>>
>>
>>


Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-03 Thread Michael Miklavcic
PR is out here - https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/1252

I made the unified enrichment topology the new default and marked the
split-join topology as deprecated in various parts of the documentation. I
think we should have a release with the deprecation notes and new default
and then move to remove split-join entirely shortly thereafter.

Best,
Mike


On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 5:47 AM Mohan Venkateshaiah <
mvenkatesha...@hortonworks.com> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Thanks
> Mohan DV
>
> On 11/2/18, 3:29 PM, "zeo...@gmail.com"  wrote:
>
> +1 totally agree.
>
> Jon
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian <
> asubraman...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
> >
> > On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman"  wrote:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet <
> justinjl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology
> isn't
> > made
> > > > > obsolete by the unified topology.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Fellow Metronians,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a
> number
> > of
> > > months
> > > > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to be
> a
> > time that
> > > I
> > > > > have
> > > > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified one.
> Here
> > are
> > > some
> > > > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >1. Unified topology performs better.
> > > > > >2. The configuration, especially for performance
> tuning is
> > much,
> > > > much
> > > > > >simpler in the unified model.
> > > > > >3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
> > > > > >4. One of the first activities for any install is
> that we
> > spend
> > > time
> > > > > >instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
> > > > > >5. One less moving part to maintain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join
> > topology and
> > > > make
> > > > > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
>
> Jon Zeolla
>
>
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-02 Thread Mohan Venkateshaiah
+1 (non-binding)

Thanks
Mohan DV

On 11/2/18, 3:29 PM, "zeo...@gmail.com"  wrote:

+1 totally agree.

Jon

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian 

wrote:

> Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
>
> On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman"  wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella 
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen  wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't
> made
> > > > obsolete by the unified topology.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fellow Metronians,
> > > > >
> > > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number
> of
> > months
> > > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to be a
> time that
> > I
> > > > have
> > > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified one. Here
> are
> > some
> > > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
> > > > >
> > > > >1. Unified topology performs better.
> > > > >2. The configuration, especially for performance tuning is
> much,
> > > much
> > > > >simpler in the unified model.
> > > > >3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
> > > > >4. One of the first activities for any install is that we
> spend
> > time
> > > > >instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
> > > > >5. One less moving part to maintain.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join
> topology and
> > > make
> > > > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --

Jon Zeolla




Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-02 Thread zeo...@gmail.com
+1 totally agree.

Jon

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018, 1:31 AM Anand Subramanian 
wrote:

> Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.
>
> On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman"  wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella 
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen  wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't
> made
> > > > obsolete by the unified topology.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fellow Metronians,
> > > > >
> > > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number
> of
> > months
> > > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to be a
> time that
> > I
> > > > have
> > > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified one. Here
> are
> > some
> > > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
> > > > >
> > > > >1. Unified topology performs better.
> > > > >2. The configuration, especially for performance tuning is
> much,
> > > much
> > > > >simpler in the unified model.
> > > > >3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
> > > > >4. One of the first activities for any install is that we
> spend
> > time
> > > > >instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
> > > > >5. One less moving part to maintain.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join
> topology and
> > > make
> > > > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --

Jon Zeolla


Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-01 Thread Anand Subramanian
Piling on my +1 (non-binding) as well.

On 11/2/18, 4:41 AM, "Ryan Merriman"  wrote:

+1

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella  wrote:

> +1
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet  wrote:
> >
> > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> > > obsolete by the unified topology.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fellow Metronians,
> > > >
> > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number of
> months
> > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to be a time that
> I
> > > have
> > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified one. Here are
> some
> > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
> > > >
> > > >1. Unified topology performs better.
> > > >2. The configuration, especially for performance tuning is much,
> > much
> > > >simpler in the unified model.
> > > >3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
> > > >4. One of the first activities for any install is that we spend
> time
> > > >instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
> > > >5. One less moving part to maintain.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join topology and
> > make
> > > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > >
> >
>




Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-01 Thread Ryan Merriman
+1

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 5:38 PM Casey Stella  wrote:

> +1
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen  wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet  wrote:
> >
> > > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> > > obsolete by the unified topology.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fellow Metronians,
> > > >
> > > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number of
> months
> > > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to be a time that
> I
> > > have
> > > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified one. Here are
> some
> > > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
> > > >
> > > >1. Unified topology performs better.
> > > >2. The configuration, especially for performance tuning is much,
> > much
> > > >simpler in the unified model.
> > > >3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
> > > >4. One of the first activities for any install is that we spend
> time
> > > >instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
> > > >5. One less moving part to maintain.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join topology and
> > make
> > > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-01 Thread Casey Stella
+1
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 18:34 Nick Allen  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet  wrote:
>
> > +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> > obsolete by the unified topology.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> > michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Fellow Metronians,
> > >
> > > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number of months
> > > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to be a time that I
> > have
> > > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified one. Here are some
> > > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
> > >
> > >1. Unified topology performs better.
> > >2. The configuration, especially for performance tuning is much,
> much
> > >simpler in the unified model.
> > >3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
> > >4. One of the first activities for any install is that we spend time
> > >instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
> > >5. One less moving part to maintain.
> > >
> > > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join topology and
> make
> > > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Mike
> > >
> >
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-01 Thread Nick Allen
+1

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 6:27 PM Justin Leet  wrote:

> +1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
> obsolete by the unified topology.
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
> michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fellow Metronians,
> >
> > We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number of months
> > now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to be a time that I
> have
> > seen the split-join topology outperform the unified one. Here are some
> > simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
> >
> >1. Unified topology performs better.
> >2. The configuration, especially for performance tuning is much, much
> >simpler in the unified model.
> >3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
> >4. One of the first activities for any install is that we spend time
> >instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
> >5. One less moving part to maintain.
> >
> > I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join topology and make
> > the unified enrichment topology the new default.
> >
> > Best,
> > Mike
> >
>


Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate split-join enrichment topology in favor of unified enrichment topology

2018-11-01 Thread Justin Leet
+1, I haven't seen any case where the split-join topology isn't made
obsolete by the unified topology.

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 6:17 PM Michael Miklavcic <
michael.miklav...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fellow Metronians,
>
> We've had the unified enrichment topology around for a number of months
> now, it has proved itself stable, and there is yet to be a time that I have
> seen the split-join topology outperform the unified one. Here are some
> simple reasons to deprecate the split-join topology.
>
>1. Unified topology performs better.
>2. The configuration, especially for performance tuning is much, much
>simpler in the unified model.
>3. The footprint within the cluster is smaller.
>4. One of the first activities for any install is that we spend time
>instructing users to switch to the unified topology.
>5. One less moving part to maintain.
>
> I'd like to recommend that we deprecate the split-join topology and make
> the unified enrichment topology the new default.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>