From common-issues-return-166877-apmail-hadoop-common-issues-archive=hadoop.apache.org@hadoop.apache.org Wed Mar 6 13:13:04 2019 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hadoop-common-issues-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-issues-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5377D187C9 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:13:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 99523 invoked by uid 500); 6 Mar 2019 13:13:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-issues-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 99474 invoked by uid 500); 6 Mar 2019 13:13:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact common-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list common-issues@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 99462 invoked by uid 99); 6 Mar 2019 13:13:03 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 13:13:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 2F5FA182E48 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:13:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.501 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nftCwZCYf8mq for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:13:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 7A60461115 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:13:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (unknown [207.244.88.139]) by mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id CDDC4E282A for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:13:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jira-lw-us.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jira-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at jira-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTP id 7FCDB25751 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:13:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:13:00 +0000 (UTC) From: "He Xiaoqiao (JIRA)" To: common-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Comment Edited] (HADOOP-16119) KMS on Hadoop RPC Engine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16119?page=3Dcom.atlassi= an.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=3D16= 785610#comment-16785610 ]=20 He Xiaoqiao edited comment on HADOOP-16119 at 3/6/19 1:12 PM: -------------------------------------------------------------- [~jojochuang] I would like to offer issues about current version of KMS tha= t I meet in practice. # Scalability: now it is difficult to scale KMS instance friendly since de= legation token and all key data are isolated between different KMS instance= s at all. # Transparent: KMSClient has to upgrade the configuration even when add on= e KMS instance. # HA: it seems that KMS instances is peer-to-peer arch.=C2=A0but client ha= s to try one by one util success if some one fault. the cost is very high. # Data Consistency: KMS instance manages key by Java KeyStore isolated, KM= S client request to create key to all KMS instances serially, if one of the= m failed for some reason, create-request will throw exception and key in Ke= yStore of different instances will be same completely, also no check backgr= ound as far as I know. Some of them are also mentioned and as exit criteria in [^Design doc_ KMS v= 2.pdf] via [~jojochuang]. I think the core issue is no share-storage between different instance in on= e word. I propose to create a plugin ShareStore as file/dbms/zookeeper behind KMS i= nstance, and let KMS stateless. It seems work well using the share storage = reference RBF. Another side, we can also retain cache mechanism to improve = the performance.=20 [~jojochuang] please do correct me if I am wrong. was (Author: hexiaoqiao): [~jojochuang] I would like to offer issues about current version of KMS tha= t I meet in practice. # Scalability: now it is difficult to scale KMS instance friendly since de= legation token and all key data are isolated between different KMS instance= s at all. # Transparent: KMSClient has to upgrade the configuration even when add on= e KMS instance. # HA: it seems that KMS instances is peer-to-peer arch.=C2=A0but client ha= s to try one by one util success if some one fault. the cost is very high. # Data Consistency: KMS instance manages key by Java KeyStore isolated, KM= S client request to create key to all KMS instances serially, if one of the= m failed for some reason, create-request will throw exception and key in Ke= yStore of different instances will be same completely, also no check backgr= ound as far as I know. I think the core issue is no share-storage between different instance in on= e word. I propose to create a plugin ShareStore as file/dbms/zookeeper behind KMS = instance, and let KMS stateless. It seems work well using the share storage= reference RBF. Another side, we can also retain cache mechanism to improve= the performance.=20 [~jojochuang] please do correct me if I am wrong. > KMS on Hadoop RPC Engine > ------------------------ > > Key: HADOOP-16119 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16119 > Project: Hadoop Common > Issue Type: New Feature > Reporter: Jonathan Eagles > Assignee: Wei-Chiu Chuang > Priority: Major > Attachments: Design doc_ KMS v2.pdf > > > Per discussion on common-dev and text copied here for ease of reference. > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0e2eeaf07b013f17fad6d362393f53d52041= 828feec53dcddff04808@%3Ccommon-dev.hadoop.apache.org%3E > {noformat} > Thanks all for the inputs, > To offer additional information (while Daryn is working on his stuff), > optimizing RPC encryption opens up another possibility: migrating KMS > service to use Hadoop RPC. > Today's KMS uses HTTPS + REST API, much like webhdfs. It has very > undesirable performance (a few thousand ops per second) compared to > NameNode. Unfortunately for each NameNode namespace operation you also ne= ed > to access KMS too. > Migrating KMS to Hadoop RPC greatly improves its performance (if > implemented correctly), and RPC encryption would be a prerequisite. So > please keep that in mind when discussing the Hadoop RPC encryption > improvements. Cloudera is very interested to help with the Hadoop RPC > encryption project because a lot of our customers are using at-rest > encryption, and some of them are starting to hit KMS performance limit. > This whole "migrating KMS to Hadoop RPC" was Daryn's idea. I heard this > idea in the meetup and I am very thrilled to see this happening because i= t > is a real issue bothering some of our customers, and I suspect it is the > right solution to address this tech debt. > {noformat} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-issues-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: common-issues-help@hadoop.apache.org