>
> Nick's concerns about my suggestion were that it was overly complex and
> hard to grok and that we could dispense with backwards compatibility and
> make people do a bit more work on the default case for the benefits of a
> simpler advanced case. (Nick, make sure I don't misstate your position)
I will add is that in my mind, the majority case would be a user specifying
the outputs, but not things like 'batchSize' or 'when'. I think in the
majority case, the user would accept whatever the default batch size is.
Here are alternatives suggestions for all the examples that you provided
previously.
Base Case
- The user must always specify the 'outputs' for clarity.
- Uses default index name, batch size and when = true.
{
'elasticsearch': {},
'hdfs': {}
}
<https://gist.github.com/nickwallen/489735b65cdb38aae6e45cec7633a0a1#writer-non-specific-case>Writer-non-specific
Case
- There are no global overrides, as in Casey's proposal.
- Easier to grok IMO.
{
'elasticsearch': {
'index': 'foo',
'batchSize': 100
},
'hdfs': {
'index': 'foo',
'batchSize': 100
}
}
<https://gist.github.com/nickwallen/489735b65cdb38aae6e45cec7633a0a1#writer-specific-case-without-filters>Writer-specific
case without filters
{
'elasticsearch': {
'index': 'foo',
'batchSize': 1
},
'hdfs': {
'index': 'foo',
'batchSize': 100
}
}
<https://gist.github.com/nickwallen/489735b65cdb38aae6e45cec7633a0a1#writer-specific-case-with-filters>Writer-specific
case with filters
- Instead of having to say when=false, just don't configure HDFS
{
'elasticsearch': {
'index': 'foo',
'batchSize': 100,
'when': 'exists(field1)'
}
}
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave,
> For the benefit of posterity and people who might not be as deeply
> entangled in the system as we have been, I'll recap things and hopefully
> answer your question in the process.
>
> Historically the index configuration is split between the enrichment
> configs and the global configs.
>
> - The global configs really controls configs that apply to all sensors.
> Historically this has been stuff like index connection strings, etc.
> - The sensor-specific configs which control things that vary by sensor.
>
> As of Metron-652 (in review currently), we moved the sensor specific
> configs from the enrichment configs. The proposal here is to increase the
> granularity of the the sensor specific files to make them support index
> writer-specific configs. Right now in the indexing topology, we have 2
> writers (fixed): ES/Solr and HDFS.
>
> The proposed configuration would allow you to either specify a blanket
> sensor-level config for the index name and batchSize and/or override at the
> writer level, thereby supporting a couple of use-cases:
>
> - Turning off certain index writers (e.g. HDFS)
> - Filtering the messages written to certain index writers
>
> The two competing configs between Nick and I are as follows:
>
> - I want to make sure we keep the old sensor-specific defaults with
> writer-specific overrides available
> - Nick thought we could simplify the permutations by making the indexing
> config only the writer-level configs.
>
> My concerns about Nick's suggestion were that the default and majority
> case, specifying the index and the batchSize for all writers (th eone we
> support now) would require more configuration.
>
> Nick's concerns about my suggestion were that it was overly complex and
> hard to grok and that we could dispense with backwards compatibility and
> make people do a bit more work on the default case for the benefits of a
> simpler advanced case. (Nick, make sure I don't misstate your position).
>
> Casey
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:54 AM, David Lyle <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Casey,
> >
> > Can you give me a level set of what your thinking is now? I think it's
> > global control of all index types + overrides on a per-type basis. Fwiw,
> > I'm totally for that, but I want to make sure I'm not imposing my
> > pre-concieved notions on your consensus-driven ones.
> >
> > -D....
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I am suggesting that, yes. The configs are essentially the same as
> > yours,
> > > except there is an override specified at the top level. Without that,
> in
> > > order to specify both HDFS and ES have batch sizes of 100, you have to
> > > explicitly configure each. It's less that I'm trying to have backwards
> > > compatibility and more that I'm trying to make the majority case easy:
> > both
> > > writers write everything to a specified index name with a specified
> batch
> > > size (which is what we have now). Beyond that, I want to allow for
> > > specifying an override for the config on a writer-by-writer basis for
> > those
> > > who need it.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Nick Allen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are you saying we support all of these variants? I realize you are
> > > trying
> > > > to have some backwards compatibility, but this also makes it harder
> > for a
> > > > user to grok (for me at least).
> > > >
> > > > Personally I like my original example as there are fewer
> > sub-structures,
> > > > like 'writerConfig', which makes the whole thing simpler and easier
> to
> > > > grok. But maybe others will think your proposal is just as easy to
> > grok.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Casey Stella <[email protected]>
> > > 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 <
> [email protected]
> > >
> > > > > 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" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >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]>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nick Allen <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Nick Allen <[email protected]>
