From common-issues-return-166352-apmail-hadoop-common-issues-archive=hadoop.apache.org@hadoop.apache.org Fri Mar 1 19:04:07 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 5B00418F18 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 19:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 84591 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2019 19:04:07 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hadoop-common-issues-archive@hadoop.apache.org Received: (qmail 84541 invoked by uid 500); 1 Mar 2019 19:04:07 -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 84527 invoked by uid 99); 1 Mar 2019 19:04:07 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Mar 2019 19:04:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 89556C198D for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 19:04:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.301 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, 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-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M6WB070vicjc for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 19:04:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org (mailrelay1-us-west.apache.org [209.188.14.139]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTP id 1213861123 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 19:04:04 +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 1B516E2809 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 19:04:03 +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 B1194256EC for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2019 19:04:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 19:04:02 +0000 (UTC) From: "Jonathan Eagles (JIRA)" To: common-issues@hadoop.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HADOOP-16119) KMS on Hadoop RPC Engine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16119?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16781980#comment-16781980 ] Jonathan Eagles commented on HADOOP-16119: ------------------------------------------ I wonder about supporting 2 endpoints to allow installations with existing KMS over jetty to migrate to KMS over RPC with no downtime! [~daryn], could you comment on the design approach? > 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/0e2eeaf07b013f17fad6d362393f53d52041828feec53dcddff04808@%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 need > 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 it > 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