Def agree on the parity point. I'm a little worried about Supervisor relocations for non-HBase solutions, but having much of the work done for us by MaxMind changes my preference to (in order)
1) MM API 2) HBase Enrichment 3) MapDB should the others prove not feasible -D... On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Justin Leet <justinjl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I definitely agree on checking out the MaxMind API. I'll take a look at > it, but at first glance it looks like it does include everything we use. > Great find, JJ. > > More details on various people's points: > > As a note to anyone hopping in, Simon's point on the range lookup vs a key > lookup is why it becomes a Scan in HBase vs a Get. As an addendum to what > Simon mentioned, denormalizing is easy enough and turns it into an easy > range lookup. > > To David's point, the MapDB does require a network hop, but it's once per > refresh of the data (Got a relevant callback? Grab new data, load it, swap > out) instead of (up to) once per message. I would expect the same to be > true of the MaxMind db files. > > I'd also argue MapDB not really more complex than refreshing the HBase > table, because we potentially have to start worrying about things like > hashing and/or indices and even just general data represtation. It's > definitely correct that the file processing has to occur on either path, so > it really boils down to handling the callback and reloading the file vs > handling some of the standard HBasey things. I don't think either is an > enormous amount of work (and both are almost certainly more work than > MaxMind's API) > > Regarding extensibility, I'd argue for parity with what we have first, then > build what we need from there. Does anybody have any disagreement with > that approach for right now? > > Justin > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:04 PM, David Lyle <dlyle65...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It is interesting- save us a ton of effort, and has the right license. I > > think it's worth at least checking out. > > > > -D... > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Simon Elliston Ball < > > si...@simonellistonball.com> wrote: > > > > > I like that approach even more. That way we would only have to worry > > about > > > distributing the database file in binary format to all the supervisor > > nodes > > > on update. > > > > > > It would also make it easier for people to switch to the enterprise DB > > > potentially if they had the license. > > > > > > One slight issue with this might be for people who wanted to extend the > > > database. For example, organisations may want to add geo-enrichment to > > > their own private network addresses based modified versions of the geo > > > database. Currently we don’t really allow this, since we hard-code > > ignoring > > > private network classes into the geo enrichment adapter, but I can see > a > > > case where a global org might want to add their own ranges and > locations > > to > > > the data set. Does that make sense to anyone else? > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > > > On 16 Jan 2017, at 16:50, JJ Meyer <jjmey...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > Can we leverage maxmind's Java client ( > > > > https://github.com/maxmind/GeoIP2-java/tree/master/src/ > > > main/java/com/maxmind/geoip2) > > > > in this case? I believe it can directly read maxmind file. Plus I > think > > > it > > > > also has some support for caching as well. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > JJ > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Simon Elliston Ball < > > > > si...@simonellistonball.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I like the idea of MapDB, since we can essentially pull an instance > > into > > > >> each supervisor, so it makes a lot of sense for relatively small > > scale, > > > >> relatively static enrichments in general. > > > >> > > > >> Generally this feels like a caching problem, and would be for a > simple > > > >> key-value lookup. In that case I would agree with David Lyle on > using > > > HBase > > > >> as a source or truth and relying on caching. > > > >> > > > >> That said, GeoIP is a different lookup pattern, since it’s a range > > > lookup > > > >> then a key lookup (or if we denormalize the MaxMind data, just a > range > > > >> lookup) for that kind of thing MapDB with something like the BTree > > > seems a > > > >> good fit. > > > >> > > > >> Simon > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> On 16 Jan 2017, at 16:28, David Lyle <dlyle65...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm +1 on removing the MySQL dependency, BUT - I'd prefer to see it > > as > > > an > > > >>> HBase enrichment. If our current caching isn't enough to mitigate > the > > > >> above > > > >>> issues, we have a problem, don't we? Or do we not recommend HBase > > > >>> enrichment for per message enrichment in general? > > > >>> > > > >>> Also- can you elaborate on how MapDB would not require a network > hop? > > > >>> Doesn't this mean we would have to sync the enrichment data to each > > > Storm > > > >>> supervisor? HDFS could (probably would) have a network hop too, no? > > > >>> > > > >>> Fwiw - > > > >>> "In its place, I've looked at using MapDB, which is a really easy > to > > > use > > > >>> library for creating Java collections backed by a file (This is > NOT a > > > >>> separate installation of anything, it's just a jar that manages > > > >> interaction > > > >>> with the file system). Given the slow churn of the GeoIP files (I > > > >> believe > > > >>> they get updated once a week), we can have a script that can be run > > > when > > > >>> needed, downloads the MaxMind tar file, builds the MapDB file that > > will > > > >> be > > > >>> used by the bolts, and places it into HDFS. Finally, we update a > > > config > > > >> to > > > >>> point to the new file, the bolts get the updated config callback > and > > > can > > > >>> update their db files. Inside the code, we wrap the MapDB portions > > to > > > >> make > > > >>> it transparent to downstream code." > > > >>> > > > >>> Seems a bit more complex than "refresh the hbase table". Afaik, > > either > > > >>> approach would require some sort of translation between GeoIP > source > > > >> format > > > >>> and target format, so that part is a wash imo. > > > >>> > > > >>> So, I'd really like to see, at least, an attempt to leverage HBase > > > >>> enrichment. > > > >>> > > > >>> -D... > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> I think that it's a sensible thing to use MapDB for the geo > > > enrichment. > > > >>>> Let me state my reasoning: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> - An HBase implementation would necessitate a HBase scan > possibly > > > >>>> hitting HDFS, which is expensive per-message. > > > >>>> - An HBase implementation would necessitate a network hop and > MapDB > > > >>>> would not. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I also think this might be the beginning of a more general purpose > > > >> support > > > >>>> in Stellar for locally shipped, read-only MapDB lookups, which > might > > > be > > > >>>> interesting. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> In short, all quotes about premature optimization are sure to > apply > > to > > > >> my > > > >>>> reasoning, but I can't help but have my spidey senses tingle when > we > > > >>>> introduce a scan-per-message architecture. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Casey > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Dima Kovalyov < > > > >> dima.koval...@sstech.us> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Hello Justin, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Considering that Metron uses hbase tables for storing enrichment > > and > > > >>>>> threatintel feeds, can we use Hbase for geo enrichment as well? > > > >>>>> Or MapDB can be used for enrichment and threatintel feeds instead > > of > > > >>>> hbase? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - Dima > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On 01/16/2017 04:17 PM, Justin Leet wrote: > > > >>>>>> Hi all, > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> As a bit of background, right now, GeoIP data is loaded into and > > > >>>> managed > > > >>>>> by > > > >>>>>> MySQL (the connectors are LGPL licensed and we need to sever our > > > Maven > > > >>>>>> dependency on it before next release). We currently depend on > and > > > >>>> install > > > >>>>>> an instance of MySQL (in each of the Management Pack, Ansible, > and > > > >>>> Docker > > > >>>>>> installs). In the topology, we use the JDBCAdapter to connect to > > > MySQL > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>>> query for a given IP. Additionally, it's a single point of > > failure > > > >> for > > > >>>>>> that particular enrichment right now. If MySQL is down, geo > > > >> enrichment > > > >>>>>> can't occur. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> I'm proposing that we eliminate the use of MySQL entirely, > through > > > all > > > >>>>>> installation paths (which, unless I missed some, includes > Ansible, > > > the > > > >>>>>> Ambari Management Pack, and Docker). We'd do this by dropping > all > > > the > > > >>>>>> various MySQL setup and management through the code, along with > > all > > > >> the > > > >>>>>> DDL, etc. The JDBCAdapter would stay, so that anybody who wants > > to > > > >>>> setup > > > >>>>>> their own databases for enrichments and install connectors is > able > > > to > > > >>>> do > > > >>>>> so. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> In its place, I've looked at using MapDB, which is a really easy > > to > > > >> use > > > >>>>>> library for creating Java collections backed by a file (This is > > NOT > > > a > > > >>>>>> separate installation of anything, it's just a jar that manages > > > >>>>> interaction > > > >>>>>> with the file system). Given the slow churn of the GeoIP files > (I > > > >>>>> believe > > > >>>>>> they get updated once a week), we can have a script that can be > > run > > > >>>> when > > > >>>>>> needed, downloads the MaxMind tar file, builds the MapDB file > that > > > >> will > > > >>>>> be > > > >>>>>> used by the bolts, and places it into HDFS. Finally, we update > a > > > >>>> config > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>> point to the new file, the bolts get the updated config callback > > and > > > >>>> can > > > >>>>>> update their db files. Inside the code, we wrap the MapDB > > portions > > > to > > > >>>>> make > > > >>>>>> it transparent to downstream code. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> The particularly nice parts about using MapDB are that its ease > of > > > use > > > >>>>> plus > > > >>>>>> it offers the utilities we need out of the box to be able to > > support > > > >>>> the > > > >>>>>> operations we need on this (Keep in mind the GeoIP files use IP > > > ranges > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>>> we need to be able to easily grab the appropriate range). > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> The main point of concern I have about this is that when we grab > > the > > > >>>> HDFS > > > >>>>>> file during an update, given that multiple JVMs can be running, > we > > > >>>> don't > > > >>>>>> want them to clobber each other. I believe this can be avoided > by > > > >>>> simply > > > >>>>>> using each worker's working directory to store the file (and > > > >>>>> appropriately > > > >>>>>> ensure threads on the same JVM manage multithreading). This > > should > > > >>>> keep > > > >>>>>> the JVMs (and the underlying DB files) entirely independent. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> This script would get called by the various installations during > > > >>>> startup > > > >>>>> to > > > >>>>>> do the initial setup. After install, it can then be called on > > > demand > > > >>>> in > > > >>>>>> order. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> At this point, we should be all set, with everything running and > > > >>>>> updatable. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Justin > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
