[DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi Board Report Oct 2017

Team, Please see draft board report. Am looking for feedback/edits quickly as this needs to be submitted by Wed. I'll probably send it in tonight though as I might not have time over the next couple of days. Thanks Joe **==**==**==**==** ## Description: - Apache NiFi is an easy to use,

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi Board Report Oct 2017

Joe I think this looks great. Thanks for putting this together, On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > Team, > > Please see draft board report. Am looking for feedback/edits quickly > as this needs to be submitted by Wed. I'll probably send it in >

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi Board Report Oct 2017

Looks good to me, thanks! On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > Team, > > Please see draft board report. Am looking for feedback/edits quickly > as this needs to be submitted by Wed. I'll probably send it in > tonight though as I might not have time over the

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi Board Report Oct 2017

Noticed the following: -In Health Report section:  "seeing a very strong pipeline to both both committer and PMC”(remove extra both) -"Apache NiFi 1.4.0 was released Oct 1 2017”  (Change? Release Notes says Oct 2) Otherwise, looks great! -Drew > On Oct 9, 2017, at 10:23 AM, Marc

Re: Long recovery time

Thanks for the input, Mark. I also enabled DEBUG logging on MinimalLockingWriteAheadLog and that did show me that it was making progress in recovery. The node did come up overnight and is back down to a reasonable flowfile_repository size. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:33 AM, Mark Payne

Re: route flow based on variable

Thanks Bryan, I tried after reading your reply, I could use the variable directly in RouteOnAttribute, I thought I could only use attributes of a FlowFile in RouteOnAttribute, thanks. /Ben 2017-10-09 19:24 GMT+08:00 Bryan Bende : > Ben, > > 1) Yes, the variables are

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi Board Report Oct 2017

Hey Joe, It looks good to me. Thanks Pierre 2017-10-09 16:12 GMT+02:00 Joe Witt : > Team, > > Please see draft board report. Am looking for feedback/edits quickly > as this needs to be submitted by Wed. I'll probably send it in > tonight though as I might not have time

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi Board Report Oct 2017

Joe, looks good with the couple changes Drew mentioned--thanks. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:30 AM Andrew Lim wrote: > Noticed the following: > > -In Health Report section: "seeing a very strong pipeline to both both > committer and PMC” (remove extra both) > -"Apache

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi Board Report Oct 2017

Joe -- LGTM On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Rob Moran wrote: > Joe, looks good with the couple changes Drew mentioned--thanks. > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:30 AM Andrew Lim > wrote: > > > Noticed the following: > > > > -In Health Report section:

Re: FuzzyHashContent/CompareFuzzyHash processor

You need to extract the relevant fields and either modify the flowfile content inline (losing the other data) or create a new flowfile (you can still retain the complete content in the “original” flowfile) and pass the flowfile with only the content you want to perform the hash on to the

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi Board Report Oct 2017

LGTM as well with suggested update. -yolanda On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:03 AM, Rob Moran wrote: > Joe, looks good with the couple changes Drew mentioned--thanks. > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:30 AM Andrew Lim > wrote: > > > Noticed the following: >

[ANNOUNCE] Apache NiFi CVE-2017-12623

Apache NiFi PMC would like to announce the discovery and resolution of CVE-2017-12623. This issue has been resolved and a new version of the Apache NiFi project was released in accordance with the Apache Release Process. Apache NiFi is an easy to use, powerful, and reliable system to process

RE: [EXT] Re: Funnel Queue Slowness

Bryan, Yes, it was the penalty causing the issue. This feels like weird behavior for Funnel’s, and I’m not sure if it makes sense for penalties to work this way. Would it make more sense if penalties were generally kept as is, but not applied at Funnel’s, then the penalty would kick back in at

Re: [EXT] Re: Funnel Queue Slowness

Peter, I see your point that it feels not natural or at least surprising. There are two challenges I see with what you propose. One is user oriented and the other is technical. The user oriented one is that penalized objects are penalized as a function of the thing that last operated on them.

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi Board Report Oct 2017

thanks all very much for the prompt responses! Submitted with drew's edits. joe On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:11 PM, James Wing wrote: > Thanks, Joe. It looks good to me, too. > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > >> Team, >> >> Please see

Re: [DRAFT][REPORT] Apache NiFi Board Report Oct 2017

Thanks, Joe. It looks good to me, too. On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 7:12 AM, Joe Witt wrote: > Team, > > Please see draft board report. Am looking for feedback/edits quickly > as this needs to be submitted by Wed. I'll probably send it in > tonight though as I might not have

Re: route flow based on variable

Ben, 1) Yes, the variables are hierarchical, so a variable at the root group would be visible to all components, unless there is a variable with the same name at a lower level which would override it. 2) I haven’t tried this, but I would expect that you should still be able to use

Re: Funnel Queue Slowness

Peter, The images didn’t come across for me, but since you mentioned that a failure queue is involved, is it possible all the flow files going to failure are being penalized which would cause them to not be processed immediately? -Bryan > On Oct 8, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Peter Wicks (pwicks)

Re: FuzzyHashContent/CompareFuzzyHash processor

Hi Andy, Thanks for the reply. But I am still not able to solve my use case. For example I have a data file in the below structure. Col1 Col2 Col3 Col4 Col5 Test1Test2 Test3 Test4 Test5 I want to do a fuzzy matching on Col2 and Col3 and generate an output

Can we archive multiple user search base in login-identity-providers.xml NIFI

Hello, I have setup three node secure NIFI cluster and integrated with LDAP for user login . my doubts *-*-*-*-*-*--* 1)In login-identity-providers.xml can we add multiple USER Search Base of ldap.(i tried by adding multiple usersearchbase but failed) as I attached screen shot in

Re: ListenTcpRecord

Clay, Multiple packets should not be an issue since it is reading a stream of data from the socket, but I don’t think the prefixed length will work. The data coming across has to be in a format that one of the record readers can understand. If you have JSON data and then have something