What would you like to be added?
I found the configuration naming is confusing and misleading. For example, the configuration field minio.storageType appears to be a MinIO-specific configuration. However, in reality, it represents the storage type used by Milvus.
If minio.storageType is 'local', it has nothing to do with MinIO, but it uses the configuration under minio namespace.
Would it be more appropriate to align it with Milvus’s own configuration style, such as common.storageType, for better consistency and clarity?
In addition, there is many other configurations like minio.backupXXXX, should it be better if we put them under backup namepace, i.e. backup.XXXX?
Why is this needed?
No response
Anything else?
No response
What would you like to be added?
I found the configuration naming is confusing and misleading. For example, the configuration field minio.storageType appears to be a MinIO-specific configuration. However, in reality, it represents the storage type used by Milvus.
If minio.storageType is 'local', it has nothing to do with MinIO, but it uses the configuration under minio namespace.
Would it be more appropriate to align it with Milvus’s own configuration style, such as common.storageType, for better consistency and clarity?
In addition, there is many other configurations like minio.backupXXXX, should it be better if we put them under backup namepace, i.e. backup.XXXX?
Why is this needed?
No response
Anything else?
No response