metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Psaltis <psaltis.and...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Metron-265 Model as a Service
Date Fri, 08 Jul 2016 14:05:32 GMT
Very interesting. Stellar does make life easier/more transparent for JVM
developers, but it would seem that there will end-up being a client that
has to be developed for non-jvm languages otherwise folks will be left to
do all of the work themselves.

Based on some of the reasons cited above (GPU, etc.) it seems like a
requirement to have a separate model service. It would be really nice to
find a way to not let the innards of that API leak into everywhere else. If
all feature selection happens in the model service, that then raises some
of the same questions SImon did as far as how can the Storm bolts generate
a good cache key so that the model service does not need to be called.
Perhaps, this could be solved with a model service library and not just
exposing a REST (or other protocol) endpoint, the feature selection and
cache key generation can be hidden from clients. This still poses the issue
of having to carry this abstraction across languages.

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, it's an interesting discussion about where exactly feature selection
> happens.  I suspect it will happen in multiple places.  Let's take the DGA
> model as our motivating example.  This guy is likely to not require too
> much beyond the domain name.  The model code should pull apart the features
> from that domain (entropy, the tld, stripping subdomains, etc.) and
> probably has some reference data resident within the model (probability of
> bigrams in various languages, for instance) that it will use to build the
> real input.  As it stands, a lot of the feature selection is likely to be
> done in the model, but the model should be explicit about what it wants as
> input.  For instance, it could demand only the raw domain or it could
> demand the subdomains, domain and tld to be separated out.  In either case,
> the caching should work as long as the model is deterministic for a given
> input.
>
> I think it will be interesting to see, however, where the feature selection
> will happen for most models.  This is essentially why I pushed for this to
> be part of stellar, so that some transformation can be done prior to model
> execution.  For instance,  for our DGA model, you could call
> MODEL_APPLY('dga',  DOMAIN_REMOVE_TLD(domain), DOMAIN_TO_TLD(domain) )
> which would do the (admittedly not-so) heavy work of separating tlds from
> the domain inside of stellar as opposed to having to do it in the language
> that is being used to implement your model.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Simon Ball <sball@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
> > There is an interesting division of concerns here that might impact the
> > design.
> >
> > If we're looking to cache things like dga which operate on a subset of
> the
> > enriched Metron data model, then we essentially need to push the feature
> > selection, or at least feature projection elements of the model to the
> edge
> > (the bolt) to produce a cache key. This seems to make sense in the
> context
> > of the function call to the model proposed, but means that the model call
> > does not apply to a whole Metron data record, but a subset determined by
> > that call on the dsl. This implicitly pushes model related concerns
> > (feature selection) outside of the canonical scope for defining the
> models
> > themselves (the model service), which loses model encapsulation.
> >
> > In essence you would be embedding the feature selection (projection) of
> > the model engine in the storm bolts in order to make caching possible,
> > which would need some sort of central control, and rationalisation to
> avoid
> > cache misses between multiple models with slightly different feature
> sets.
> > This could add complexity, or reduce cache utilisation really quickly
> with
> > model scale.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > > On 7 Jul 2016, at 18:51, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Great questions Andrew.  Thanks for the interest. :)
> > >
> > > RE:: "which is why there would be a caching layer set in front of it at
> > the
> > > Storm bolt level"
> > >
> > > Right now we have a LRU caching layer in front of the HBase enrichment
> > > adapters, so it would work similarly.  You can imagine, the range of
> > inputs
> > > is likely not perfectly random, so it's reasonable for the cache to
> have
> > a
> > > non-empty working set.  Take for instance a DGA model; the input would
> > be a
> > > domain and most organizations will have an uneven distribution of
> domains
> > > they access with a heavy skew toward a small number.
> > >
> > > RE: In this scenario, you can at least scale out via load balancing
> (i.e.
> > > multiple model services serving the same model) since the models are
> > > immutable.
> > >
> > > I am talking about model execution here.  The endpoints are distributed
> > > across the cluster and the storm bolt chooses a service to use (with a
> > bias
> > > toward using one that is local to that bolt) and the request is made to
> > the
> > > endpoint, which scores the input and returns the response.
> > >
> > > Model service, if that term means what I think it means, is almost
> > entirely
> > > done inside of zookeeper.  For clarity, I'm talking about service
> > discovery
> > > (bolt discovers which endpoints serve which models) and model updates.
> > We
> > > are not sending the model around to any bolts or any such thing, just
> for
> > > clarity sake.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Andrew Psaltis <
> psaltis.andrew@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks Casey! Couple of quick questions.
> > >>
> > >> RE:: "which is why there would be a caching layer set in front of it
> at
> > the
> > >> Storm bolt level"
> > >> Hmm, would this be of the results of model execution? Would this
> really
> > >> work when each tuple may contain totally different data? Or is the
> > caching
> > >> going to be smart enough that it will look at all the data passed in
> and
> > >> determine that an identical tuple has already been evaluated so serve
> > the
> > >> result out of cache?
> > >>
> > >> RE: "Also, we would prefer local instances of the service when and
> where
> > >> possible"
> > >> Perfect makes sense.
> > >>
> > >> RE: Serving many models from every storm bolt is also fairly
> expensive.
> > >> I can see how it could be, but couldn't  we can make sure that not all
> > >> models live in every bolt?
> > >>
> > >> RE: In this scenario, you can at least scale out via load balancing
> > (i.e.
> > >> multiple model services serving the same model) since the models are
> > >> immutable.
> > >> This seems to address the model serving, not model execution service.
> > >> Having yet one more layer to scale and mange also seems like it
> > >> would further complicate things. Could we not just also scale the
> bolts?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Andrew
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> So, regarding the expense of communication; I tend to agree that it
> is
> > >>> expensive, which is why there would be a caching layer set in front
> of
> > it
> > >>> at the Storm bolt level.  Also, we would prefer local instances of
> the
> > >>> service when and where possible.  Serving many models from every
> storm
> > >> bolt
> > >>> is also fairly expensive.  In this scenario, you can at least scale
> out
> > >> via
> > >>> load balancing (i.e. multiple model services serving the same model)
> > >> since
> > >>> the models are immutable.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Andrew Psaltis <
> > psaltis.andrew@gmail.com
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> OK that makes sense. So the doc attached to this JIRA[1] just speaks
> > to
> > >>> the
> > >>>> Model serving. Is there a doc for the model service? And by making
> > >> this a
> > >>>> separate service we are saying that for every
> > “MODEL_APPLY(model_name,
> > >>>> param_1, param_2, …, param_n)” we are potentially going to
go across
> > >> the
> > >>>> wire and have a model executed? That seems pretty expensive, no?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Andrew
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-265
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> The "REST" model service, which I place in quotes because there
is
> > >> some
> > >>>>> strong discussion about whether REST is a reasonable transport
for
> > >>> this,
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>> responsible for providing the model.  The scoring/model application
> > >>>> happens
> > >>>>> in the model service and the results get transferred back to
the
> > >> storm
> > >>>> bolt
> > >>>>> that calls it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Casey
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Andrew Psaltis <
> > >>> psaltis.andrew@gmail.com
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Trying to make sure I grok this thread and the word doc
attached
> to
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>> JIRA. The word doc and JIRA speak to a Model Service Service
and
> > >> that
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> REST service will be responsible for serving up models.
However,
> > >> part
> > >>>> of
> > >>>>>> this conversation seems to suggest that the model execution
will
> > >>>> actually
> > >>>>>> occur at the REST service .. in particular this comment
from
> James:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> "There are several reasons to decouple model execution
from
> Storm:"
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If the model execution is decoupled from Storm then it
appears
> that
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>> REST service will be executing the model, not just serving
it up,
> > >> is
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>> correct?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>> Andrew
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Casey Stella <
> cestella@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Regarding the performance of REST:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Yep, so everyone seems to be worried about the performance
> > >>>> implications
> > >>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>> REST.  I made this comment on the JIRA, but I'll repeat
it here
> > >> for
> > >>>>>> broader
> > >>>>>>> discussion:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> My choice of REST was mostly due to the fact that I
want to
> > >> support
> > >>>>>>>> multi-language (I think that's a very important
requirement)
> > >> and
> > >>>>> there
> > >>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>> REST libraries for pretty much everything. I do
agree, however,
> > >>>> that
> > >>>>>> JSON
> > >>>>>>>> transport can get chunky. How about a compromise
and use REST,
> > >>> but
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> input and output payloads for scoring are Maps
encoded in
> > >> msgpack
> > >>>>>> rather
> > >>>>>>>> than JSON. There is a msgpack library for pretty
much every
> > >>>> language
> > >>>>>> out
> > >>>>>>>> there (almost) and certainly all of the ones we'd
like to
> > >> target.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The other option is to just create and expose protobuf
bindings
> > >>>>> (thrift
> > >>>>>>>> doesn't have a native client for R) for all of
the languages
> > >> that
> > >>>> we
> > >>>>>> want
> > >>>>>>>> to support. I'm perfectly fine with that, but I
had some
> > >> worries
> > >>>>> about
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> maturity of the bindings.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The final option, as you suggest, is to just use
raw sockets. I
> > >>>> think
> > >>>>>> if
> > >>>>>>>> we went that route, we might have to create a layer
for each
> > >>>> language
> > >>>>>>>> rather than relying on model creators to create
a TCP server. I
> > >>>>> thought
> > >>>>>>>> that might be a bit onerous for a MVP.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Given the discussion, though, what it has made
me aware of is
> > >>> that
> > >>>> we
> > >>>>>>>> might not want to dictate a transport mechanism
at all, but
> > >>> rather
> > >>>>>> allow
> > >>>>>>>> that to be pluggable and extensible (so each model
would be
> > >>>>> associated
> > >>>>>>> with
> > >>>>>>>> a transport mechanism handler that would know how
to
> > >> communicate
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>> We
> > >>>>>>>> would provide default mechanisms for msgpack over
REST, JSON
> > >> over
> > >>>>> REST
> > >>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> maybe msgpack over raw TCP.) Thoughts?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Regarding PMML:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I tend to agree with James that PMML is too restrictive
as to
> > >>> models
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>> represent and I have not had great experiences with
it in
> > >>> production.
> > >>>>>>> Also, the open source libraries for PMML have licensing
issues
> > >>> (jpmml
> > >>>>>>> requires an older version to accommodate our licensing
> > >>> requirements).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Regarding workflow:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> At the moment, I'd like to focus on getting a generalized
> > >>>>> infrastructure
> > >>>>>>> for model scoring and updating put in place.   This
means, this
> > >>>>>>> architecture takes up the baton from the point when
a model is
> > >>>>>>> trained/created.  Also, I have attempted to be generic
in terms
> > >> of
> > >>>>> output
> > >>>>>>> of the model (a map of results) so it can fit any type
of model
> > >>> that
> > >>>> I
> > >>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>> think of.  If that's not the case, let me know, though.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> For instance, for clustering, you would probably emit
the cluster
> > >>> id
> > >>>>>>> associated with the input and that would be added to
the message
> > >> as
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>>>> passes through the storm topology.  The model is responsible
for
> > >>>>>> processing
> > >>>>>>> the input and constructing properly formed output.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Casey
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Debo Dutta (dedutta)
<
> > >>>>> dedutta@cisco.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Following up on the thread a little late …. Awesome
start
> > >> Casey.
> > >>>> Some
> > >>>>>>>> comments:
> > >>>>>>>> * Model execution
> > >>>>>>>> ** I am guessing the model execution will be on
YARN only for
> > >>> now.
> > >>>>> This
> > >>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> fine, but the REST call could have an overhead
- depends on the
> > >>>>> speed.
> > >>>>>>>> * PMML: won’t we have to choose some DSL for
describing models?
> > >>>>>>>> * Model:
> > >>>>>>>> ** workflow vs a model -  do we care about the
“workflow" that
> > >>>> leads
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> the models or just the “model"? For example,
we might start
> > >> with
> > >>> n
> > >>>>>>> features
> > >>>>>>>> —> do feature selection to choose k (or apply
a transform
> > >>> function)
> > >>>>> —>
> > >>>>>>>> apply a model etc
> > >>>>>>>> * Use cases - I can see this working for n-ary
classification
> > >>> style
> > >>>>>>> models
> > >>>>>>>> easily. Will the same mechanism be used for stuff
like
> > >> clustering
> > >>>> (or
> > >>>>>>>> intermediate steps like feature selection alone).
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thx
> > >>>>>>>> debo
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 7/5/16, 3:24 PM, "James Sirota" <jsirota@apache.org>
wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Simon,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> There are several reasons to decouple model
execution from
> > >>> Storm:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> - Reliability: It's much easier to handle a
failed service
> > >> than
> > >>> a
> > >>>>>> failed
> > >>>>>>>> bolt.  You can also troubleshoot without having
to bring down
> > >> the
> > >>>>>>> topology
> > >>>>>>>>> - Complexity: you de-couple the model logic
from Storm logic
> > >> and
> > >>>> can
> > >>>>>>>> manage it independently of Storm
> > >>>>>>>>> - Portability: you can swap the model guts
(switch from Spark
> > >> to
> > >>>>>> Flink,
> > >>>>>>>> etc) and as long as you maintain the interface
you are good to
> > >> go
> > >>>>>>>>> - Consistency: since we want to expose our
models the same way
> > >>> we
> > >>>>>> expose
> > >>>>>>>> threat intel then it makes sense to expose them
as a service
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> In our vision for Metron we want to make it
easy to uptake and
> > >>>> share
> > >>>>>>>> models.  I think well-defined interfaces and programmatic
ways
> > >> of
> > >>>>>>>> deployment, lifecycle management, and scoring via
well-defined
> > >>> REST
> > >>>>>>>> interfaces will make this task easier.  We can
do a few things
> > >> to
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> With respect to PMML I personally had not had
much luck with
> > >> it
> > >>> in
> > >>>>>>>> production.  I would prefer models as POJOs.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>>>> James
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 04.07.2016, 16:07, "Simon Ball" <sball@hortonworks.com>:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Since the models' parameters and execution
algorithm are
> > >>> likely
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>> small, why not have the model store push the model
changes and
> > >>>>> scoring
> > >>>>>>>> direct to the bolts and execute within storm. This
negates the
> > >>>>> overhead
> > >>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>> a rest call to the model server, and the need for
discovery of
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>> model
> > >>>>>>>> server in zookeeper.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Something like the way ranger policies
are updated / cached
> > >> in
> > >>>>>> plugins
> > >>>>>>>> would seem to make sense, so that we're distributing
the model
> > >>>>>> execution
> > >>>>>>>> directly into the enrichment pipeline rather than
collecting
> > >> in a
> > >>>>>> central
> > >>>>>>>> service.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> This would work with simple models on single
events, but may
> > >>>>>> struggle
> > >>>>>>>> with correlation based models. However, those could
be handled
> > >> in
> > >>>>> storm
> > >>>>>>> by
> > >>>>>>>> pushing into a windowing trident topology or something
of the
> > >>> sort,
> > >>>>> or
> > >>>>>>> even
> > >>>>>>>> with a parallel spark streaming job using the same
method of
> > >>>>>> distributing
> > >>>>>>>> models.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> The real challenge here would be stateful
online models,
> > >> which
> > >>>>> seem
> > >>>>>>>> like a minority case which could be handled by
a shared state
> > >>> store
> > >>>>>> such
> > >>>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>> HBase.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> You still keep the ability to run different
languages, and
> > >>>>>> platforms,
> > >>>>>>>> but wrap managing the parallelism in storm bolts
rather than
> > >> yarn
> > >>>>>>>> containers.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> We could also consider basing the model
protocol on a a
> > >> common
> > >>>>> model
> > >>>>>>>> language like pmml, thong that is likely to be
highly limiting.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Simon
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 4 Jul 2016, at 22:35, Casey Stella
<cestella@gmail.com
> > >>>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> This is great! I'll capture any requirements
that anyone
> > >>> wants
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> contribute and ensure that the proposed
architecture
> > >>>>> accommodates
> > >>>>>>>> them. I
> > >>>>>>>>>>> think we should focus on a minimal
set of requirements and
> > >>> an
> > >>>>>>>> architecture
> > >>>>>>>>>>> that does not preclude a larger set.
I have found that the
> > >>>> best
> > >>>>>>>> driver of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> requirements are installed users. :)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> For instance, I think a lot of questions
about how often
> > >> to
> > >>>>>> update a
> > >>>>>>>> model
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and such should be represented in the
architecture by the
> > >>>>> ability
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> manually update a model, so as long
as we have the ability
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>>> update,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> people can choose when and where to
do it (i.e. time based
> > >>> or
> > >>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>> other
> > >>>>>>>>>>> trigger). That being said, we don't
want to cause too much
> > >>>>> effort
> > >>>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> user if we can avoid it with features.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> In terms of the questions laid out,
here are the
> > >> constraints
> > >>>>> from
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> proposed architecture as I see them.
It'd be great to get
> > >> a
> > >>>>> sense
> > >>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> whether these constraints are too onerous
or where they're
> > >>> not
> > >>>>>>>> opinionated
> > >>>>>>>>>>> enough :
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - Model versioning and retention
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - We do have the ability to update
models, but the
> > >>> training
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> decision
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     of when to update the model is
left up to the user.
> > >> We
> > >>>> may
> > >>>>>> want
> > >>>>>>>> to think
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     deeply about when and where automated
model updates
> > >> can
> > >>>> fit
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     - Also, retention is currently
manual. It might be an
> > >>>>> easier
> > >>>>>>> win
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     set up policies around when to
sunset models (after
> > >>> newer
> > >>>>>>>> versions are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     added, for instance).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - Model access controls management
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - The architecture proposes no constraints
around this.
> > >> As
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>>>> stands
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     now, models are held in HDFS, so
it would inherit the
> > >>>> same
> > >>>>>>>> security
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     capabilities from that (user/group
permissions +
> > >>> Ranger,
> > >>>>> etc)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - Requirements around concept drift
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - I'd love to hear user requirements
around how we could
> > >>>>>>>> automatically
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     address concept drift. The architecture
as it's
> > >>> proposed
> > >>>>>> let's
> > >>>>>>>> the user
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     decide when to update models.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - Requirements around model output
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - The architecture as it stands just
mandates a JSON map
> > >>>> input
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> JSON
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     map output, so it's up to the model
what they want to
> > >>>> pass
> > >>>>>>> back.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     - It's also up to the model to
document its own
> > >> output.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - Any model audit and logging requirements
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - The architecture proposes no constraints
around this.
> > >>> I'd
> > >>>>> love
> > >>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     community guidance around this.
As it stands, we just
> > >>> log
> > >>>>>> using
> > >>>>>>>> the same
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     mechanism as any YARN application.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - What model metrics need to be exposed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - The architecture proposes no constraints
around this.
> > >>> I'd
> > >>>>> love
> > >>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> see
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     community guidance around this.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     - Requirements around failure modes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>  - We briefly touch on this in the
document, but it is
> > >>>> probably
> > >>>>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     complete. Service endpoint failure
will result in
> > >>>>>> blacklisting
> > >>>>>>>> from a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     storm bolt perspective and node
failure should result
> > >>> in
> > >>>> a
> > >>>>>> new
> > >>>>>>>> container
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     being started by the Yarn application
master. Beyond
> > >>>> that,
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>     architecture isn't explicit.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 1:49 PM,
James Sirota <
> > >>>>> jsirota@apache.org
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I left a comment on the JIRA. I
think your design is
> > >>>> promising.
> > >>>>>> One
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> other thing I would suggest is
for us to crowd source
> > >>>>>> requirements
> > >>>>>>>> around
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> model management. Specifically:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Model versioning and retention
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Model access controls management
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Requirements around concept drift
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Requirements around model output
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Any model audit and logging requirements
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> What model metrics need to be exposed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Requirements around failure modes
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 03.07.2016, 14:00, "Casey Stella"
<cestella@gmail.com>:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think we are at the point
where we should try to
> > >> tackle
> > >>>>> Model
> > >>>>>>> as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> service for Metron. As such,
I created a JIRA and
> > >> proposed
> > >>>> an
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> architecture
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for accomplishing this within
Metron.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My inclination is to be data
science language/library
> > >>>> agnostic
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> provide a general purpose REST
infrastructure for
> > >> managing
> > >>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> serving
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> models trained on historical
data captured from Metron.
> > >>> The
> > >>>>>>>> assumption is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that we are within the hadoop
ecosystem, so:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>  - Models stored on HDFS
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>  - REST Model Services resource-managed
via Yarn
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>  - REST Model Services discovered
via Zookeeper.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would really appreciate community
comment on the JIRA
> > >> (
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-265).
The
> > >>>>> proposed
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> architecture is attached as
a document to that JIRA.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I look forward to feedback!
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Casey
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> James Sirota
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> -------------------
> > >>>>>>>>> Thank you,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> James Sirota
> > >>>>>>>>> PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
> > >>>>>>>>> jsirota AT apache DOT org
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>> Andrew
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
> > >>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
> > >>>>>> twiiter: @itmdata <
> > >>> http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Andrew
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
> > >>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
> > >>>> twiiter: @itmdata <
> http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Andrew
> > >>
> > >> Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
> > >> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
> > >> twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata
> >
> > >>
> >
>



-- 
Thanks,
Andrew

Subscribe to my book: Streaming Data <http://manning.com/psaltis>
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-psaltis/1/17b/306>
twiiter: @itmdata <http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=itmdata>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message