Being able to configure guardrails dynamically makes a lot of sense to me,
I have updated the CEP to mention that. I think we don't need to decide yet
whether it would be done through JMX and/or virtual tables.
On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 20:35, C. Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote:
> Re: "I think you all know my feels on JMX." –
>
> Super fair - I'd meant to speak in terms of desired outcome ("the feature
> should be dynamically configurable at runtime") rather than implementation
> ("this should be via JMX"). 👍
>
> On Nov 1, 2021, at 1:24 PM, David Capwell <dcapw...@apple.com.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>
> If anyone wants to bite off making
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/ab920c30310a8c095ba76b363142b8e74cbf0a0a/src/java/org/apache/cassandra/db/virtual/SettingsTable.java
> <
> https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/ab920c30310a8c095ba76b363142b8e74cbf0a0a/src/java/org/apache/cassandra/db/virtual/SettingsTable.java>
> support mutability then we get vtable support. I am cool with JMX and/or
> vtable, to me its just more important to allow dynamic setting of these
> configs.
>
> On Nov 1, 2021, at 10:36 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote:
>
> having them only configured via yaml seems like a bad outcome
>
>
> +1
>
> I would like to see us move towards configuration being driven through
> virtual tables where possible, so that the whole cluster can be managed
> from a single interface. Not sure if this is the right place to bite this
> off, but perhaps?
>
> From: Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, 1 November 2021 at 16:47
> To: Cassandra DEV <dev@cassandra.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] CEP-3: Guardrails
> Without bike-shedding too much, guardrails would be great, building them
> into a more general purpose framework that limits various dangerous things
> would be fantastic. The CEP says that the guardrails should be distinct
> from the capability restrictions (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8303 ), but I don't see
> why
> that needs to be the case. A system-level guardrail and a personal-level
> guardrail are both restrictions, they just have different scopes, so
> implement the restriction framework first, and allow the scopes to be
> expanded as needed?
>
> Naming wise, I don't know that I'd actually surface these as "guardrails",
> but more as general "limits", and having them only configured via yaml
> seems like a bad outcome
>
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8303
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 9:31 AM Andrés de la Peña <adelap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd like to start a discussion about Guardrails proposal:
>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/%28DRAFT%29+-+CEP-3%3A+Guardrails
>
> Guardrails are an easy way to enforce system-wide soft and hard limits to
> prevent anti-patterns of bad usage and in the long run make it not possible
> to severely degrade the performance of a node/cluster through user actions
> such as having too many secondary indexes, too large partitions, almost
> full disks, etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
>
