hi all, great to read about this, I'd like to join in! Can I just join using the zoom link tomorrow or do I need an invitation? (If I do need one, please invite me :))
cheers On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:15 PM Daniel Imberman <daniel.imber...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you Ian, > > I’ve invited everyone on this thread to the meeting with that zoom link. > Anyone else who wants to join can add the calendar event here > calendar.google.com/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=Mm4zN2Q3MnFwNnBqbW9hMmNocXMyNzJpdHYgZGFuaWVsQGFzdHJvbm9tZXIuaW8&tmsrc=dan...@astronomer.io > <https://calendar.google.com/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=Mm4zN2Q3MnFwNnBqbW9hMmNocXMyNzJpdHYgZGFuaWVsQGFzdHJvbm9tZXIuaW8&tmsrc=daniel%40astronomer.io> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:05 AM, Ian Buss <ianjb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>
