Replies: 1 comment
-
Ping on this ^^^^ Is there any license on fusion filesystem? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
New feature
Hi,
First, thank you again for Nextflow, which is a wonderful tool.
I would like to request the ability to use
fusion
without requiringwave
. Whilewave
is a great piece of software, I'm wondering if it is necessary just to provide thefusion
executable. For example, theaws-cli
executable is provided differently, and it seems possible to do the same for thefusion
executable.I have noticed that the
fusion
executables are available at:However, I didn't see any license information associated with it. Could you clarify if it's permissible to use it freely?
From what I understand, we would need to configure the container hosts to mount the
fusion
binary into/usr/bin
and mount a temporary directory from the host into/fusion
withchmod 777
. This can be done with a command like:This can be setup easily with AWS Batch or docker with the configuration
aws.batch.volumes
and docker withdocker.runOptions
.This kind of workaround might prevent the automatic usage of
wave
to providefusion
. However, I wasn't able to test this since usingfusion
withoutwave
is currently not allowed by design.Usage scenario
For pipelines based on Docker images, some users might find that wave is not required. Here are a few scenarios where using
fusion
withoutwave
could be beneficial:wave
.wave
might not be accessible.wave
could pose compliance issues.wave
's API rate limits and the requirement for a Tower token might be restrictive for some users.Suggest implementation
It would be beneficial to allow the use of
fusion
withoutwave
, giving users the option to manage the configuration for the provisioning of thefusion
executable themselves. This could be implemented with a configuration option likefusion.useWithoutWave
.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions