Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-flink-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-flink-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E067810716 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 49241 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2015 12:34:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-flink-dev-archive@flink.apache.org Received: (qmail 49185 invoked by uid 500); 17 Feb 2015 12:34:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flink.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@flink.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@flink.apache.org Received: (qmail 49174 invoked by uid 99); 17 Feb 2015 12:34:36 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:34:36 +0000 Received: from mail-qg0-f51.google.com (mail-qg0-f51.google.com [209.85.192.51]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 124F21A02BD for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 12:34:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id z60so27607898qgd.10 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:34:35 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.83.163 with SMTP id j32mr126873qgd.52.1424176475194; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:34:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.189.135 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 04:34:35 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:34:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dedicated streaming mode and start scripts From: Till Rohrmann To: dev@flink.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c119b4e70dd1050f47ec57 --001a11c119b4e70dd1050f47ec57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Kostas Tzoumas wrote= : > +1 > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:14 PM, M=C3=A1rton Balassi > wrote: > > > When it comes to the current use cases I'm for this separation. > > @Ufuk: As Gyula has already pointed out with the current design of > > integration it should not be a problem. Even if we submitted programs t= o > > the wrong clusters it would only cause performance issues. > > > > Eventually it would be nice to have an integrated cluster. > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Ufuk Celebi wrote: > > > > > I think this separation reflects the way that Flink is used currently > > > anyways. I would be in favor of it as well. > > > > > > - What about the ongoing efforts (I think by Gyula) to combine both t= he > > > batch and stream processing APIs? I assume that this would only effec= t > > the > > > performance and wouldn't pose a fundamental problem there, would it? > > > > > > --001a11c119b4e70dd1050f47ec57--