Would you then parallelise within Stellar to handle things like multiple 
lookups? This feels like it would be breaking the storm model somewhat, and 
could lead to bad things with threads for example. Or would you think of doing 
something like the grouping Stellar uses today to parallelise across something 
like a pool of Stellar bolts and join? 

I like the idea of Otto’s solution (making it someone else's problem, storm’s 
specifically :) ) but that also assumes we insert the artificial latency of a 
time windowed join. If we’re going down that route, we might as well just use 
spark and run everything on yarn. At that point though we lose a lot of the 
benefits of low latency for time to detection, and real-time enrichment in 
things like the streaming enrichment writer.

Simon

> On 16 May 2017, at 16:59, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote:
> 
> I would like to see us just migrate wholly to Stellar enrichments and
> remove the separate HBase and Geo enrichment bolts from the Enrichment
> topology.  Stellar provides a user with much greater flexibility than the
> existing HBase and Geo enrichment bolts.
> 
> A side effect of this would be to greatly simplify the Enrichment
> topology.  I don't think we would not need the split/join pattern if we did
> this. No?
> 
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The problem is that an enrichment type won't necessarily have a fixed
>> performance characteristic.  Take stellar enrichments, for instance.  Doing
>> a HBase call for one sensor vs doing simple string munging will have vastly
>> differing performance.  Both of them are functioning within the stellar
>> enrichment bolt.  Also, some enrichments may call for multiple calls to
>> HBase.  Parallelizing those, would make some sense, I think.
>> 
>> I do take your point, though, that it's not as though it's strictly serial,
>> it's just that the unit of parallelism is the message, rather than the
>> enrichment per message.
>> 
>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Christian Tramnitz <tramn...@trasec.de>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I’m glad you bring this up. This is a huge architectural difference from
>>> the original OpenSOC topology and one that we have been warned to take
>> back
>>> then.
>>> To be perfectly honest, I don’t see the big perfomance improvement from
>>> parallel processing. If a specific enrichment is a little more i/o
>>> dependent than the other you can tweak parallelism to address this. Also
>>> there can be dependencies that make parallel enrichment virtually
>>> impossible or at least less efficient (i.e. first labeling, and
>>> “completing” a message and then dependent of label and completeness do
>>> different other enrichments).
>>> 
>>> So you have a +1 from me for serial rather than parallel enrichment.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> BR,
>>>   Christian
>>> 
>>> On 16.05.17, 16:58, "Casey Stella" <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    Hi All,
>>> 
>>>    Last week, I encountered some weirdness in the Enrichment topology.
>>> Doing
>>>    some somewhat high-latency enrichment work, I noticed that at some
>>> point,
>>>    data stopped flowing through the enrichment topology.  I tracked down
>>> the
>>>    problem to the join bolt.  For those who aren't aware, we do a
>>> split/join
>>>    pattern so that enrichments can be done in parallel.  It works as
>>> follows:
>>> 
>>>       - A split bolt sends the appropriate subset of the message to each
>>>       enrichment bolt as well as the whole message to the join bolt
>>>       - The join bolt will receive each of the pieces of the message and
>>> then,
>>>       when fully joined, it will send the message on.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    What is happening under load or high velocity, however, is that the
>>> cache
>>>    is evicting the partially joined message before it can be fully
>> joined
>>> due
>>>    to the volume of traffic.  This is obviously not ideal.  As such, it
>> is
>>>    clear that adjusting the size of the cache and the characteristics of
>>>    eviction is likely a good idea and a necessary part to tuning
>>> enrichments.
>>>    The cache size is sensitive to:
>>> 
>>>       - The latency of the *slowest* enrichment
>>>       - The number of tuples in flight at once
>>> 
>>>    As such, the knobs you have to tune are either the parallelism of the
>>> join
>>>    bolt or the size of the cache.
>>> 
>>>    As it stands, I see a couple of things wrong here that we can correct
>>> with
>>>    minimal issue:
>>> 
>>>       - We have no message of warning indicating that this is happening
>>>       - Changing cache sizes means changing flux.  We should promote
>> this
>>> to
>>>       the properties file.
>>>       - We should document the knobs mentioned above clearly in the
>>> enrichment
>>>       topology README
>>> 
>>>    Those small changes, I think, are table stakes, but what I wanted to
>>>    discuss more in depth is the lingering questions:
>>> 
>>>       - Is this an architectural pattern that we can use as-is?
>>>          - Should we consider a persistent cache a la HBase or Apache
>>> Ignite
>>>          as a pluggable component to Metron?
>>>          - Should we consider taking the performance hit and doing the
>>>          enrichments serially?
>>>       - When an eviction happens, what should we do?
>>>          - Fail the tuple, thereby making congestion worse
>>>          - Pass through the partially enriched results, thereby making
>>>          enrichments "best effort"
>>> 
>>>    Anyway, I wanted to talk this through and inform of some of the
>> things
>>> I'm
>>>    seeing.
>>> 
>>>    Sorry for the novel. ;)
>>> 
>>>    Casey
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Reply via email to