On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 1:29 PM Robin Sommer <ro...@corelight.com> wrote:

> > (1) enable the "explicit/manual" forwarding by default?
>
> Coming from that assumption above, I'd say yes here, doing it like you
> suggest: differentiate between forwarding and locally raising an event
> by topic. Maybe instead of adding it to Broker::subscribe() as a
> boolean, we add a separate "Broker::forward(topic_prefix)" function,
> and use that to essentially hardcode forwarding on each node just like
> we want/need for the cluster. Behind the scenes Broker could still
> just store the information as a boolean, but API-wise it means we can
> later (once we have real routing) just rip out the forward() calls and
> let Magic take its role. :)

Not sure there'd be anywhere we'd currently use Broker::forward() ?
Or is it a matter of "if a user needed it for something, then it's
available" ?

The only intra-cluster communication that's more than 1 hop at the
moment is worker-worker, but setting up a Broker::forward() route
wouldn't be my first thought as it's not currently a scalable
approach.  I'd instead take the cautious approach of relaying via a
RR-proxy so one can add proxies to handle more load as needed.

However, I can see Broker::forward() could make it a bit easier for a
user wanting to manually set up a forwarding route between clusters or
other external applications.  Is that a clear use-case we need to
cater to now?  If so, then it would indeed be just saying "hey,
Broker::forward() is now a no-op since Broker has real routing
mechanisms and you can remove them".

> As you say, we don't get load-balancing that way (today), but we still
> have pools for distributing analyses (like the known-* scripts do).
> And if distributing message load (like the Intel scripts do) is
> necessary, I think pools can solve that as well: we could use a RR
> proxy pool and funnel it through script-land there: send to one proxy
> and have an event handler there that triggers a new event to publish
> it back out to the workers. For proxies, that kind of additional load
> should be fine (if load-balancing is even necessary at all; just going
> through a single forwarding node might just as well be fine.

Seems more prudent not to guess whether a single, hardcoded forwarding
node is good enough when writing the default cluster-enabled scripts.
RR via proxy is not just load-balancing either, but fault-tolerance as
well.

But here you're talking more about removing the relay() functions and
doing the RR-via-proxy "manually", right?  That seems ok to me -- once
"real" routing is available, you then have the option to simplify your
script and get a minor optimization by not having to manually
handle+forward the event on proxies.

> > (2) re-implement any existing subscription cycles?
>
> Now, here I'm starting to change my mind a bit. Maybe in the end, in
> large topologies, it would be futile to insist on not having cycles
> after all. The assumption above doesn't care about it, putting Broker
> in charge of figuring it out. So with that, if we can set up
> forwarding through (1) in a way that cycles in subscriptions don't
> matter, it may be fine to just leave them in. But I guess in the end
> it doesn't matter, removing them can only make things better/easier.

Again, I think we wouldn't have any Broker::forward() usages in the
default cluster setup, but simply enabling the forwarding of messages
at the Broker-layer would currently cause some messages to route in a
cycle.  Enabling the current message forwarding means we need to
re-implement existing subscription cycles.  If we instead waited for
the "real" routing, then it doesn't matter if we leave them in.

- Jon
_______________________________________________
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev

Reply via email to