If this works for everyone, here's a zoom link for Thursday 8AM PST: https://cloudera.zoom.us/j/99928254235?pwd=VTFlQk4vQjQ5Z2JzUDM3ZWZKKy9MQT09
Happy to move or use an alternate method as needed. On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 6:58 PM Daniel Imberman <daniel.imber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thursday works for me! > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:05 AM, Ian Buss <ianjb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I actually can’t do Wednesday next week as I’m moving house :) Any chance > we could do Thursday or Friday at the same time? > > Cheers > > Ian > On 14 Apr 2021, 17:49 +0100, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com>, wrote: > > Just few comments here: > > Currently -- atleast for the foreseeable future Airflow workers will need > access to the DAG Files, so workers can not run using the Serialized DAGs. > > Also serialized DAGs do not even have all the info needed for it to run > it. Currently the serialization happens in the parsing process in the > scheduler which can be in future separated as a separator "parsining" > component, but that won't solve the "isolation" problem you are trying to > solve. The only current way it can be solved is pickling -- and we have > strictly decided against using pickling for DAGs. > > The idea in Statement (2) & (3) would help solve the isolation problem in > (1) and can be done with some work now. > > Happy to talk about it in more detail here or on call, the time Daniel > suggested works for me. > > Regards, > Kaxil > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5:35 PM Daniel Imberman <daniel.imber...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> How about Wednesday, April 21 at 8:00AM PST? >> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:33 AM, Xinbin Huang <bin.huan...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I am available any days. >> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021, 9:32 AM Daniel Imberman <daniel.imber...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone! >>> >>> Would people be available around 8AM/9AM PST some point next week? I’m >>> in PST and Ian is UTC+1 so would be great to find a timezone that >>> accomodates everyone. >>> >>> Daniel >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 6:26 AM, Ryan Hatter <ryannhat...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I’d also like to be added please :) >>> >>> On Apr 13, 2021, at 21:27, Xinbin Huang <bin.huan...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Daniel & Ian, >>> >>> I am also interested in the idea of a serialization representation that >>> can be executed by workers directly. Can you also add me to the call? >>> >>> Thanks >>> Bin >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Ian Buss <ianjb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Daniel, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your warm welcome and quick response and the advice on >>>> providers! Will certainly check out the examples you sent. >>>> >>>> 1. An "airflow register" command definitely sounds promising, would >>>> love to collaborate on an AIP there so let's set something up. >>>> 2. We use KubernetesExecutor exclusively as well. We've noticed >>>> significant additional load on the metadata DB as we scale up task pods so >>>> I've also thought about an API-based approach. Such an API could also open >>>> up the possibility of per-task security tokens which are injected by the >>>> scheduler, which should improve the security of such a system. Food for >>>> thought at least. I will start putting some of these thoughts down on paper >>>> in a sharable format. >>>> >>>> Ian >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 7:46 PM Daniel Imberman < >>>> daniel.imber...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Ian, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Firstly, welcome to the Airflow community :). I'm glad to hear you've >>>>> had a positive experience so far. It's great to hear that you want to >>>>> contribute back, and I think that multi-tenancy/DAG isolation is a pretty >>>>> fantastic project for the community as a whole (a lot of things are are >>>>> things we want but are limited by hours in a day). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1. I've personally been kicking around some ideas lately about an >>>>> "airflow register" command that would write the DAG into the metadata DB >>>>> in >>>>> a way that could be "gettable" by the workers via the API. This work is >>>>> very early. I'd love to get some help on it. Perhaps we can set up a zoom >>>>> chat to discuss drafting an AIP? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. Limiting worker access to the DB is not only good security >>>>> practice; it also opens up the door to a lot of valuable features. This >>>>> feature would be especially close to my heart as it would make the >>>>> KubernetesExecutor significantly more efficient. It should be possible to >>>>> set up a system where the workers only ever speak to an API server and >>>>> never need to touch the DB. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3. This is not something I personally have insight into, but I think >>>>> it sounds like a good idea. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Finally, addressing your question about a Cloudera provider. If >>>>> anything, it would probably give the provider _more_ legitimacy if you >>>>> hosted it under the Cloudera GitHub org (we very purposely created the >>>>> provider packages with this workflow in mind). There are multiple places >>>>> where we can work to surface this provider so it is easy to find and use. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Astronomer has a pretty good sample provider here >>>>> <https://github.com/astronomer/airflow-provider-sample>. One example >>>>> of it running in the wild is the Great Expectations provider here >>>>> <https://github.com/great-expectations/airflow-provider-great-expectations>. >>>>> I'd also be glad to get you in contact with people who have built >>>>> providers >>>>> in the past to help you with that process. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Looking forward to seeing some of these things come to fruition! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Daniel >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 9:43 AM, Ian Buss <ianjb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> First a quick introduction: I'm an engineer with Cloudera working on >>>>> our Data Engineering product (CDE). Airflow is working great for us so >>>>> far. >>>>> We've been looking into how we can enhance the multi-tenancy story of >>>>> Apache Airflow as we currently deploy it. We have the following areas >>>>> which >>>>> we'd like (with community consensus) to work on and contribute back to >>>>> Apache Airflow to enhance the isolation between tenants in a single >>>>> Airflow >>>>> deployment. >>>>> >>>>> 1. Isolating code execution and parsing of DAG files. At the moment, >>>>> DAG files are parsed in a few locations in Airflow, including the >>>>> scheduler >>>>> and in tasks. There is already the concept of DAG serialization (and we're >>>>> using that for the web component) but we'd be interested to see if we can >>>>> sandbox the execution of arbitrary user code to a locked down >>>>> process/container without full access to the metadata DB and connection >>>>> secrets etc. The idea would be to parse and serialize the DAG in this >>>>> isolated container and pass back a serialized representation for >>>>> persistence in the DB. Has anyone explored this idea? >>>>> >>>>> 2. Limiting task access to the metadata DB. It would be great if we >>>>> could remove the requirement for tasks to have full access to the metadata >>>>> DB and to report task status in a different (but still scalable) way. We'd >>>>> need to tackle access or injection of connection, variable and xcom data >>>>> as >>>>> well for each task naturally. >>>>> >>>>> 3. Finer-grained access controls on connection secrets. Right now, >>>>> although there are nice at-rest encryption options with Fernet or Vault, >>>>> IIUC any DAG can access any connection (and thus any secret). Since the >>>>> "run as" user is largely defined within the DAG and its tasks, this is >>>>> challenging for a multi-tenant environment (see caveat below) >>>>> >>>>> Caveat: It's definitely noted that to some extent we should assume >>>>> that an Airflow deployment is a "trusted" environment and that best >>>>> practices such as git+PR workflows are the gold standard and that any >>>>> malicious code and dependencies should be identified through this process. >>>>> Also that there is a clear admin role for connection management etc. >>>>> >>>>> We have some ideas informally sketched out as to how to address the >>>>> above but would be keen to hear the community opinion on this and to see >>>>> if >>>>> anyone is keen to collaborate on designs and implementation, or to hear if >>>>> anything is already in the works. In particular I noticed that the very >>>>> first improvement proposal (AIP-1) addresses much of the above :). >>>>> However, >>>>> it seems fairly dormant at the moment. >>>>> >>>>> One other question: we have a provider (operators and hooks) for >>>>> interacting with Cloudera components that we'd like to contribute to the >>>>> project. The provider FAQs indicate that new provider contributions are >>>>> still welcome in the project in 2.x, is that accurate? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance! >>>>> >>>>> Ian >>>>> >>>>>
