OH that's a good idea!
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Nick Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like the "Index Filtering" option based on the flexibility that it
> provides. Should each output (HDFS, ES, etc) have its own configuration
> settings? For example, aren't things like batching handled separately for
> HDFS versus Elasticsearch?
>
> Something along the lines of...
>
> {
> "hdfs" : {
> "when": "exists(field1)",
> "batchSize": 100
> },
>
> "elasticsearch" : {
> "when": "true",
> "batchSize": 1000,
> "index": "squid"
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I tend to like the first option too. Any opposition to that from
> > anyone?
> >
> > The points brought up are good ones and I think that it may be worth a
> > broader discussion of the requirements of indexing in a separate dev list
> > thread. Maybe a list of desires with coherent use-cases justifying them
> so
> > we can think about how this stuff should work and where the natural
> > extension points should be. Afterall, we need to toe the line between
> > engineering and overengineering for features nobody will want.
> >
> > I'm not sure about the extensions to the standard fields. I'm torn
> between
> > the notions that we should have no standard fields vs we should have a
> > boatload of standard fields (with most of them empty). I exchange
> > positions fairly regularly on that question. ;) It may be worth a dev
> list
> > discussion to lay out how you imagine an extension of standard fields and
> > how it might look as implemented in Metron.
> >
> > Casey
> >
> > Casey
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Kyle Richardson <
> > [email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll second my preference for the first option. I think the ability to
> > use
> > > Stellar filters to customize indexing would be a big win.
> > >
> > > I'm glad Matt brought up the point about data lake and CEP. I think
> this
> > is
> > > a really important use case that we need to consider. Take a simple
> > > example... If I have data coming in from 3 different firewall vendors
> > and 2
> > > different web proxy/url filtering vendors and I want to be able to
> > analyze
> > > that data set, I need the data to be indexed all together (likely in
> > HDFS)
> > > and to have a normalized schema such that IP address, URL, and user
> name
> > > (to take a few) can be easily queried and aggregated. I can also
> envision
> > > scenarios where I would want to index data based on attributes other
> than
> > > sensor, business unit or subsidiary for example.
> > >
> > > I've been wanted to propose extending our 7 standard fields to include
> > > things like URL and user. Is there community interest/support for
> moving
> > in
> > > that direction? If so, I'll start a new thread.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > -Kyle
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Matt Foley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ah, I see. If overriding the default index name allows using the
> same
> > > > name for multiple sensors, then the goal can be achieved.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > --Matt
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 1/12/17, 3:30 PM, "Casey Stella" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, you could! Let's say you have a syslog parser with data from
> > > > sources 1
> > > > 2 and 3. You'd end up with one kafka queue with 3 parsers
> attached
> > > to
> > > > that
> > > > queue, each picking part the messages from source 1, 2 and 3.
> > They'd
> > > > go
> > > > through separate enrichment and into the indexing topology. In
> the
> > > > indexing topology, you could specify the same index name "syslog"
> > and
> > > > all
> > > > of the messages go into the same index for CEP querying if so
> > > desired.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Matt Foley <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Syslog is hell on parsers – I know, I worked at LogLogic in a
> > > > previous
> > > > > life. It makes perfect sense to route different lines from
> > syslog
> > > > through
> > > > > different appropriate parsers. But a lot of what the parsers
> do
> > is
> > > > > identify consistent subsets of metadata and annotate it – eg,
> > > > src_ip_addr,
> > > > > event timestamps, etc. Once those metadata are annotated and
> > > > available
> > > > > with common field names, why doesn’t it make sense to index the
> > > > messages
> > > > > together, for CEP querying? I think Splunk has illustrated
> this
> > > > model.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 1/12/17, 3:00 PM, "Casey Stella" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > yeah, I mean, honestly, I think the approach that we've
> taken
> > > for
> > > > > sources
> > > > > which aggregate different types of data is to provide
> filters
> > > at
> > > > the
> > > > > parser
> > > > > level and have multiple parser topologies (with different,
> > > > possibly
> > > > > mutually exclusive filters) running. This would be a
> > > completely
> > > > > separate
> > > > > sensor. Imagine a syslog data source that aggregates and
> you
> > > > want to
> > > > > pick
> > > > > apart certain pieces of messages. This is why the initial
> > > > thought and
> > > > > architecture was one index per sensor.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Matt Foley <
> > [email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I’m thinking that CEP (Complex Event Processing) is
> > contrary
> > > > to the
> > > > > idea
> > > > > > of silo-ing data per sensor.
> > > > > > Now it’s true that some of those sensors are already
> > > > aggregating
> > > > > data from
> > > > > > multiple sources, so maybe I’m wrong here.
> > > > > > But it just seems to me that the “data lake” insights
> come
> > > from
> > > > > being able
> > > > > > to make decisions over the whole mass of data rather than
> > > just
> > > > > vertical
> > > > > > slices of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 1/12/17, 2:15 PM, "Casey Stella" <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Matt,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the comment!
> > > > > > 1. At the moment, we only have one index name, the
> > > default
> > > > of
> > > > > which is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > sensor name but that's entirely up to the user. This
> > is
> > > > sensor
> > > > > > specific,
> > > > > > so it'd be a separate config for each sensor. If we
> > want
> > > > to
> > > > > build
> > > > > > multiple
> > > > > > indices per sensor, we'd have to think carefully
> about
> > > how
> > > > to do
> > > > > that
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > would be a bigger undertaking. I guess I can see the
> > > use,
> > > > though
> > > > > > (redirect
> > > > > > messages to one index vs another based on a predicate
> > for
> > > > a given
> > > > > > sensor).
> > > > > > Anyway, not where I was originally thinking that this
> > > > discussion
> > > > > would
> > > > > > go,
> > > > > > but it's an interesting point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. I hadn't thought through the implementation quite
> > yet,
> > > > but we
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > actually have a splitter bolt in that topology, just
> a
> > > > spout
> > > > > that goes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the elasticsearch writer and also to the hdfs writer.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Matt Foley <
> > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Casey, good to have controls like this. Couple
> > > > questions:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Regarding the “index” : “squid” name/value pair,
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > index name
> > > > > > > expected to always be a sensor name? Or is the
> given
> > > > json
> > > > > structure
> > > > > > > subordinate to a sensor name in zookeeper? Or can
> we
> > > > build
> > > > > arbitrary
> > > > > > > indexes with this new specification, independent of
> > > > sensor?
> > > > > Should
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > > actually be a list of “indexes”, ie
> > > > > > > { “indexes” : [
> > > > > > > {“index” : “name1”,
> > > > > > > …
> > > > > > > },
> > > > > > > {“index” : “name2”,
> > > > > > > …
> > > > > > > } ]
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Would the filtering / writer selection logic
> take
> > > > place in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > indexing
> > > > > > > topology splitter bolt? Seems like that would have
> > the
> > > > > smallest
> > > > > > impact on
> > > > > > > current implementation, no?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry if these are already answered in PR-415, I
> > > haven’t
> > > > had
> > > > > time to
> > > > > > > review that one yet.
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > --Matt
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 1/12/17, 12:55 PM, "Michael Miklavcic" <
> > > > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I like the flexibility and expressibility of
> the
> > > > first
> > > > > option
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > Stellar
> > > > > > > filters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > M
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Casey Stella <
> > > > > > [email protected]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As of METRON-652 <https://github.com/apache/
> > > > > > > incubator-metron/pull/415>, we
> > > > > > > > will have decoupled the indexing
> configuration
> > > > from the
> > > > > > enrichment
> > > > > > > > configuration. As an immediate follow-up to
> > > that,
> > > > I'd
> > > > > like to
> > > > > > > provide the
> > > > > > > > ability to turn off and on writers via the
> > > > configs. I'd
> > > > > like
> > > > > > to get
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > community feedback on how the functionality
> > > should
> > > > work,
> > > > > if
> > > > > > y'all are
> > > > > > > > amenable. :)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As of now, we have 3 possible writers which
> can
> > > be
> > > > used
> > > > > in the
> > > > > > > indexing
> > > > > > > > topology:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Solr
> > > > > > > > - Elasticsearch
> > > > > > > > - HDFS
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > HDFS is always used, elasticsearch or solr is
> > > used
> > > > > depending
> > > > > > on how
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > start the indexing topology.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A couple of proposals come to mind
> immediately:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *Index Filtering*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You would be able to specify a filter as
> > defined
> > > > by a
> > > > > stellar
> > > > > > > statement
> > > > > > > > (likely a reuse of the StellarFilter that
> > exists
> > > > in the
> > > > > > Parsers)
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > would allow you to indicate on a
> > > > message-by-message basis
> > > > > > whether or
> > > > > > > not to
> > > > > > > > write the message.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The semantics of this would be as follows:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Default (i.e. unspecified) is to pass
> > > > everything
> > > > > through
> > > > > > (hence
> > > > > > > > backwards compatible with the current
> > default
> > > > config).
> > > > > > > > - Messages which have the associated
> stellar
> > > > statement
> > > > > > evaluate
> > > > > > > to true
> > > > > > > > for the writer type will be written,
> > otherwise
> > > > not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sample indexing config which would write out
> no
> > > > messages
> > > > > to
> > > > > > HDFS and
> > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > out only messages containing a field called
> > > > "field1":
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > "index" : "squid"
> > > > > > > > ,"batchSize" : 100
> > > > > > > > ,"filters" : {
> > > > > > > > "HDFS" : "false"
> > > > > > > > ,"ES" : "exists(field1)"
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *Index On/Off Switch*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A simpler solution would be to just provide a
> > > list
> > > > of
> > > > > writers
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > write
> > > > > > > > messages. The semantics would be as follows:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - If the list is unspecified, then the
> > default
> > > > is to
> > > > > write
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > messages
> > > > > > > > for every writer in the indexing topology
> > > > > > > > - If the list is specified, then a writer
> > will
> > > > write
> > > > > all
> > > > > > messages
> > > > > > > if and
> > > > > > > > only if it is named in the list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sample indexing config which turns off HDFS
> and
> > > > keeps on
> > > > > > > Elasticsearch:
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > "index" : "squid"
> > > > > > > > ,"batchSize" : 100
> > > > > > > > ,"writers" : [ "ES" ]
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks in advance for the feedback! Also, if
> > you
> > > > have
> > > > > any
> > > > > > other,
> > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > ideas than the ones presented here, let me
> know
> > > > too.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Casey
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Allen <[email protected]>
>
