Adam, Like your way of thinking. It makes sense to me.
For me, a computing platform comprises two essential components - a storage engine and compute APIs (not only compute grid, but also streaming, SQL, etc.). Under this definition, Ignite fits the "compute platform" category for sure, but the problem (and the reason why I started this discussion thread) is that the "in-memory computing platform" is not a ubiquitous product category. At the same time, we all know that Ignite is used to speed things up by storing and executing in memory. And if you need to make software faster, you usually search for something scalable or in-memory (in-memory caches, in-memory, NoSQL, distributed databases). Basically, most of the folks search for "caches" and "in-memory database" which is related to Ignite and only the tip of the iceberg searches for "in-memory computing platforms" and "data grids". Btw, how has your story started with Ignite? How did you find out about it? - Denis On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:24 PM Carbone, Adam <adam.carb...@bottomline.com> wrote: > Good Evening Denis, > > I’m sure there are more out there as well, I would consider platforms > that the entire applications but that all the execution of code happens > exclusively on the platform, and most of the applications are written to > run in, not connected to the platform. > > Hmmm by this criteria k8s could possible fit the bill… > > Spark might even be considered a compute grid as well but it is not a > generic compute framework and people don’t usually run there whole > applications inside. > > What is the vision for the platform? That might help in this discussion, > set your category with the direction you are heading, and what you are > trying to achieve. > > Regards > > > > Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team | > Bottomline Technologies > Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 > www.bottomline.com > > > > > > > > *From: *Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > *Date: *Wednesday, September 23, 2020 at 4:14 PM > *To: *dev <d...@ignite.apache.org>, "Carbone, Adam" < > adam.carb...@bottomline.com> > *Cc: *"user@ignite.apache.org" <user@ignite.apache.org> > *Subject: *Re: [DISCUSSION] Renaming Ignite's product category > > > > Adam, > > > > You defined GigaSpaces as a true in-memory computing platform. What is the > true platform for you? > > > > > - > > Denis > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 7:02 AM Carbone, Adam <adam.carb...@bottomline.com> > wrote: > > So when I came across Ignite It was described as an In Memory Data Grid > > So one way to look at this is who do you fashion as Ignite competing > against? > > Are competing against Redis, Aerospike - In Memory Databases > > Or are you more competing with > > Gigaspaces - True In memory Compute platform > > And then you have like of > > Hazelcast that started as a Distributed Hash and have gained some > features... > > On thing that I think is a differentiator that isn't being highlighted but > Is unique feature to Ignited, and the primary reason we ended up here; The > integration with spark and it's distributed/shared Datasets/Dataframes. > > I don't know for me the In Memory Data Grid I think fits what Ignite is... > > Regards > > ~Adam > > Adam Carbone | Director of Innovation – Intelligent Platform Team | > Bottomline Technologies > Office: 603-501-6446 | Mobile: 603-570-8418 > www.bottomline.com > > > > On 9/17/20, 11:45 AM, "Glenn Wiebe" <glenn.wi...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > I agree with Stephen about "database" devaluing what Ignite can do > (though > it probably hits the majority of existing use cases). I tend to go with > "massively distributed storage and compute platform" > > I know, I didn't take sides, I just have both. > > Cheers, > Glenn > > On Thu., Sep. 17, 2020, 7:04 a.m. Stephen Darlington, < > stephen.darling...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > > I think this is a great question. Explaining what Ignite does is > always a > > challenge, so having a useful “tag line” would be very valuable. > > > > I’m not sure what the answer is but I think calling it a “database” > > devalues all the compute facilities. "Computing platform” may be too > vague > > but it at least says that we do more than “just” store data. > > > > On 17 Sep 2020, at 06:29, Valentin Kulichenko < > > valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > My vote is for the "distributed memory-first database". It clearly > states > > that Ignite is a database (which is true at this point), while still > > emphasizing the in-memory computing power endorsed by the platform. > > > > The "in-memory computing platform" is an ambiguous term and doesn't > really > > reflect what Ignite is, especially in its current state. > > > > -Val > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 3:53 PM Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> Igniters, > >> > >> Throughout the history of our project, we could see how the > addition of > >> certain features required us to reassess the project's name and > category. > >> > >> Before Ignite joined the ASF, it supported only compute APIs > resembling > >> the > >> MapReduce engine of Hadoop. Those days, it was fair to define > Ignite as "a > >> distributed in-memory computing engine". Next, at the time of the > project > >> donation, it already included key-value/SQL/transactional APIs, was > used > >> as > >> a distributed cache, and significantly outgrew the "in-memory > computing > >> engine" use case. That's how the project transitioned to the product > >> category of in-memory caches and we started to name it as an > "in-memory > >> data grid" or "in-memory computing platform" to differentiate from > >> classical caching products such as Memcached and Redis. > >> > >> Nowadays, the project outgrew its caching use case, and the > classification > >> of Ignite as an "in-memory data grid" or "in-memory computing > platform" > >> doesn't sound accurate. We rebuilt our storage engine by replacing a > >> typical key-value engine with a B-tree engine that spans across > memory and > >> disk tiers. And it's not surprising to see more deployments of > Ignite as a > >> database on its own. So, it feels like we need to reconsider Ignite > >> positioning again so that a) application developers can discover it > easily > >> via search engines and b) the project can stand out from in-memory > >> projects > >> with intersecting capabilities. > >> > >> To the point, I'm suggesting to reposition Ignite in one of the > following > >> ways: > >> > >> 1. Ignite is a "distributed X database". We are indeed a > distributed > >> partitioned database where X can be "multi-tiered" or > "memory-first" to > >> emphasize that we are more than an in-memory database. > >> 2. Keep defining Ignite as "an in-memory computing platform" but > name > >> our storage engine uniquely as "IgniteDB" to highlight that the > >> platform is > >> powered by a "distributed multi-tiered/memory-first database". > >> > >> What is your thinking? > >> > >> > >> (Also, regardless of a selected name, Ignite still will be used as > a cache > >> and grid, and we're not going to stop appealing to those use cases. > But > >> those are just use cases while Ignite has to figure out its new > identity > >> ... again). > >> > >> > >> - > >> Denis > >> > > > > > > > >
