How does it look with 50 whens

On January 13, 2017 at 10:02:02, Casey Stella (ceste...@gmail.com) wrote:

Ok, so here's what I'm thinking based on the discussion:

- Keeping the configs that we have now (batchSize and index) as defaults
for the unspecified writer-specific case
- Adding the config Nick suggested

*Base Case*:
{
}

- all writers write all messages
- index named the same as the sensor for all writers
- batchSize of 1 for all writers

*Writer-non-specific case*:
{
"index" : "foo"
,"batchSize" : 100
}

- All writers write all messages
- index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all writers
- batchSize is 100 for all writers

*Writer-specific case without filters*
{
"index" : "foo"
,"batchSize" : 1
, "writerConfig" :
{
"elasticsearch" : {
"batchSize" : 100
}
}
}

- All writers write all messages
- index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all writers
- batchSize is 1 for HDFS and 100 for elasticsearch writers
- NOTE: I could override the index name too

*Writer-specific case with filters*
{
"index" : "foo"
,"batchSize" : 1
, "writerConfig" :
{
"elasticsearch" : {
"batchSize" : 100,
"when" : "exists(field1)"
},
"hdfs" : {
"when" : "false"
}
}
}

- ES writer writes messages which have field1, HDFS doesn't
- index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all writers
- 100 for elasticsearch writers

Thoughts?

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Carolyn Duby <cd...@hortonworks.com>
wrote:

> For larger installations you need to control what is indexed so you don’t
> end up with a nasty elastic search situation and so you can mine the data
> later for reports and training ml models.
>
> Thanks
> Carolyn
>
>
>
>
> On 1/13/17, 9:40 AM, "Casey Stella" <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >OH that's a good idea!
> >
> >On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> 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 <ceste...@gmail.com>
> 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 <
> >> > kylerichards...@gmail.com>
> >> > 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 <ma...@apache.org>
> 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" <ceste...@gmail.com> 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 <ma...@apache.org
> >
> >> > > 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" <ceste...@gmail.com>
> >> 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 <
> >> > ma...@apache.org>
> >> > > > 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" <
> ceste...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > 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 <
> >> > > > ma...@apache.org>
> >> > > > > 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" <
> >> > > > > > michael.miklav...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > 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 <
> >> > > > > > ceste...@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > 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 <n...@nickallen.org>
> >>
>

Reply via email to