Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

doc/design: platform v2, physical distributed architecture of the query/control layer #24879

Draft
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

aljoscha
Copy link
Contributor

@aljoscha aljoscha commented Feb 1, 2024

Rendered

Related to #23543

Motivation

Part of MaterializeInc/database-issues#6316

Checklist

  • This PR has adequate test coverage / QA involvement has been duly considered.
  • This PR has an associated up-to-date design doc, is a design doc (template), or is sufficiently small to not require a design.
  • If this PR evolves an existing $T ⇔ Proto$T mapping (possibly in a backwards-incompatible way), then it is tagged with a T-proto label.
  • If this PR will require changes to cloud orchestration or tests, there is a companion cloud PR to account for those changes that is tagged with the release-blocker label (example).
  • This PR includes the following user-facing behavior changes:

@aljoscha aljoscha changed the title doc/design: design doc for platform v2 phsical distributed architecture doc/design: design doc for platform v2 physical distributed architecture Feb 1, 2024
@aljoscha aljoscha force-pushed the design-pv2-physical-architecture branch from 1c251df to 6e6bdd5 Compare February 1, 2024 16:16
@aljoscha aljoscha changed the title doc/design: design doc for platform v2 physical distributed architecture doc/design: platform v2, physical distributed architecture of the query/control layer Feb 2, 2024
@aljoscha aljoscha force-pushed the design-pv2-physical-architecture branch from bee1948 to be56d36 Compare February 2, 2024 10:57

Cons:

- Hard to see how we can evolve our design to there from our current
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like a good thing to work through! This option seems to me to have the most upside, but certainly has the most open questions. I think until those are resolved a bit more, hard to have an opinion on which is the best end state.

Also I think there's a world in which we evolve to here through something like the Multi-cluster-controllerd, Multi-clusterd Architecture, but it'd be good to flesh out how that would work early on.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants