> You have a large amount of data, that is generally readable by all users.
Not necessarily. All data has some visibility constraint that a users authorization's may or may not satisfy. > Users create their own sandbox, from which they can later exclude portions of > the global data set. Yes, users create their own sandboxes which are populated with global data. They may decide to delete some of that data and the change needs to be scoped to their sandbox until the change is published globally. > User can share their sandbox with others, so really we are talking about > sandbox permissions and not so much user permissions. Yes, users can share their sandbox with others, but a sandbox is just a collection of pointers to data. Users sharing a workspace may not necessarily see all of the same data depending on their authorizations. > Sandboxes are created often. Or, at least much more often than the data > changes. Yes, sandboxes are created often. The data is likely to be ingested more frequently than sandboxes will be created. > Do users typically remove large amounts of data from their sandbox? 1%? 10%? > 99%? I don’t have good numbers to share here. > Assuming data is removed via rules, are the rules applied automatically to > new data under ingest? I would say no, although I’m not positive I understand the question. Users are not removing data from their sandbox per se, but they may delete data that should then be hidden from their workspace. The data is not really deleted though and is still visible to other users in other sandboxes. Only when the deletion is published does it get deleted for everyone. On Mar 19, 2014, at 1:03 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > Wait, I'm really confused by what you are describing, Jeff. Sorry if these > are obvious questions, but can you help me get a better grasp of your use > case? > > You have a large amount of data, that is generally readable by all users. > Users create their own sandbox, from which they can later exclude portions of > the global data set. > User can share their sandbox with others, so really we are talking about > sandbox permissions and not so much user permissions. > Sandboxes are created often. Or, at least much more often than the data > changes. > > Are those all accurate statements? If so, can you clarify the following > points: > > Do users typically remove large amounts of data from their sandbox? 1%? 10%? > 99%? > Assuming data is removed via rules, are the rules applied automatically to > new data under ingest? > > Thanks, > Mike > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Jeff Kunkle <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > > Yes it’s accurate that the system controls the label and who is associated > with it; there are no Accumulo-internal user accounts. But I don’t think it’s > feasible to remove a sandbox label from something that should be hidden. Such > a scenario would imply that all data is “tagged” with the labels of every > sandbox that is allowed to see the data, which would be most. It would also > imply that the creation of a new sandbox would necessitate changing the > visibility of everything in Accumulo to include the new sandbox label, > effectively rewriting the entire database. Sanboxes are created and deleted > all the time in our application, so it doesn’t seem like a feasible solution > to me. > > -Jeff > > On Mar 19, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It kind of sounds like you could manage this much easier by controlling the > > authorizations a user gets (notably the workspace name) and the > > grant/revoke above the Accumulo level. > > > > A sandbox has a unique label and the external system controls which users > > are granted that label. This way, each sandbox can be modified individually > > (using authorizations that contain the data visibility and the sandbox > > label) or the original data set could be modified (by omitting a sandbox > > label in the authorizations used). > > > > Is that accurate? > > > > On 3/19/14, 12:05 PM, Jeff Kunkle wrote: > >> I attempted to simplify the scenario to facilitate discussion, which on > >> second thought may have been a mistake. Here’s the whole scenario: > >> > >> Different users have access to different subsets of the data depending > >> on their authorizations and the visibility of the data. Users “work > >> with” the data in what we call a sandbox. Sanboxes can be shared with > >> other users (this is the group creation I was talking about earlier). > >> Deletes to the data would be “scoped” to the sandbox by changing the > >> visibility to add “& !workspace_name” so that people viewing the > >> workspace wouldn’t see the data but everyone else would. > >> > >> On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:48 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Jeff Kunkle <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> > >>> New groups are created on the fly by our application when needed. > >>> Under the scenario you describe we’d have to go through all the > >>> data in Accumulo whenever a group is created so that users in the > >>> group can see the existing data. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Ah! So your use case is that all data defaults to world readable and > >>> then users have the option of opting out of seeing subsets. Right? > >>> > >>> In your scenario user groups also get to opt-out of seeing data on the > >>> fly, yes? Both require rewriting the data. Does the group creation > >>> happen more often? > >> > >
