metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Turning off indexing writers feature discussion
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2017 14:39:48 GMT
I like the "Index Filtering" option based on the flexibility that it
provides.  Should each output (HDFS, ES, etc) have its own configuration
settings?  For example, aren't things like batching handled separately for
HDFS versus Elasticsearch?

Something along the lines of...

{
  "hdfs" : {
    "when": "exists(field1)",
    "batchSize": 100
  },

  "elasticsearch" : {
    "when": "true",
    "batchSize": 1000,
    "index": "squid"
  }
}








On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Casey Stella <cestella@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I tend to like the first option too.  Any opposition to that from
> anyone?
>
> The points brought up are good ones and I think that it may be worth a
> broader discussion of the requirements of indexing in a separate dev list
> thread.  Maybe a list of desires with coherent use-cases justifying them so
> we can think about how this stuff should work and where the natural
> extension points should be.  Afterall, we need to toe the line between
> engineering and overengineering for features nobody will want.
>
> I'm not sure about the extensions to the standard fields.  I'm torn between
> the notions that we should have no standard fields vs we should have a
> boatload of standard fields (with most of them empty).  I exchange
> positions fairly regularly on that question. ;)  It may be worth a dev list
> discussion to lay out how you imagine an extension of standard fields and
> how it might look as implemented in Metron.
>
> Casey
>
> Casey
>
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Kyle Richardson <
> kylerichardson2@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'll second my preference for the first option. I think the ability to
> use
> > Stellar filters to customize indexing would be a big win.
> >
> > I'm glad Matt brought up the point about data lake and CEP. I think this
> is
> > a really important use case that we need to consider. Take a simple
> > example... If I have data coming in from 3 different firewall vendors
> and 2
> > different web proxy/url filtering vendors and I want to be able to
> analyze
> > that data set, I need the data to be indexed all together (likely in
> HDFS)
> > and to have a normalized schema such that IP address, URL, and user name
> > (to take a few) can be easily queried and aggregated. I can also envision
> > scenarios where I would want to index data based on attributes other than
> > sensor, business unit or subsidiary for example.
> >
> > I've been wanted to propose extending our 7 standard fields to include
> > things like URL and user. Is there community interest/support for moving
> in
> > that direction? If so, I'll start a new thread.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Kyle
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, I see.  If overriding the default index name allows using the same
> > > name for multiple sensors, then the goal can be achieved.
> > > Thanks,
> > > --Matt
> > >
> > >
> > > On 1/12/17, 3:30 PM, "Casey Stella" <cestella@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Oh, you could!  Let's say you have a syslog parser with data from
> > > sources 1
> > >     2 and 3.  You'd end up with one kafka queue with 3 parsers attached
> > to
> > > that
> > >     queue, each picking part the messages from source 1, 2 and 3.
> They'd
> > > go
> > >     through separate enrichment and into the indexing topology.  In the
> > >     indexing topology, you could specify the same index name "syslog"
> and
> > > all
> > >     of the messages go into the same index for CEP querying if so
> > desired.
> > >
> > >     On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >     > Syslog is hell on parsers – I know, I worked at LogLogic in a
> > > previous
> > >     > life.  It makes perfect sense to route different lines from
> syslog
> > > through
> > >     > different appropriate parsers.  But a lot of what the parsers do
> is
> > >     > identify consistent subsets of metadata and annotate it – eg,
> > > src_ip_addr,
> > >     > event timestamps, etc.  Once those metadata are annotated and
> > > available
> > >     > with common field names, why doesn’t it make sense to index the
> > > messages
> > >     > together, for CEP querying?  I think Splunk has illustrated this
> > > model.
> > >     >
> > >     > On 1/12/17, 3:00 PM, "Casey Stella" <cestella@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >     >
> > >     >     yeah, I mean, honestly, I think the approach that we've taken
> > for
> > >     > sources
> > >     >     which aggregate different types of data is to provide filters
> > at
> > > the
> > >     > parser
> > >     >     level and have multiple parser topologies (with different,
> > > possibly
> > >     >     mutually exclusive filters) running.  This would be a
> > completely
> > >     > separate
> > >     >     sensor.  Imagine a syslog data source that aggregates and you
> > > want to
> > >     > pick
> > >     >     apart certain pieces of messages.  This is why the initial
> > > thought and
> > >     >     architecture was one index per sensor.
> > >     >
> > >     >     On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Matt Foley <
> mattf@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >     >
> > >     >     > I’m thinking that CEP (Complex Event Processing) is
> contrary
> > > to the
> > >     > idea
> > >     >     > of silo-ing data per sensor.
> > >     >     > Now it’s true that some of those sensors are already
> > > aggregating
> > >     > data from
> > >     >     > multiple sources, so maybe I’m wrong here.
> > >     >     > But it just seems to me that the “data lake” insights
come
> > from
> > >     > being able
> > >     >     > to make decisions over the whole mass of data rather than
> > just
> > >     > vertical
> > >     >     > slices of it.
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     > On 1/12/17, 2:15 PM, "Casey Stella" <cestella@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     >     Hey Matt,
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     >     Thanks for the comment!
> > >     >     >     1. At the moment, we only have one index name, the
> > default
> > > of
> > >     > which is
> > >     >     > the
> > >     >     >     sensor name but that's entirely up to the user.  This
> is
> > > sensor
> > >     >     > specific,
> > >     >     >     so it'd be a separate config for each sensor.  If we
> want
> > > to
> > >     > build
> > >     >     > multiple
> > >     >     >     indices per sensor, we'd have to think carefully about
> > how
> > > to do
> > >     > that
> > >     >     > and
> > >     >     >     would be a bigger undertaking.  I guess I can see the
> > use,
> > > though
> > >     >     > (redirect
> > >     >     >     messages to one index vs another based on a predicate
> for
> > > a given
> > >     >     > sensor).
> > >     >     >     Anyway, not where I was originally thinking that this
> > > discussion
> > >     > would
> > >     >     > go,
> > >     >     >     but it's an interesting point.
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     >     2. I hadn't thought through the implementation quite
> yet,
> > > but we
> > >     > don't
> > >     >     >     actually have a splitter bolt in that topology, just
a
> > > spout
> > >     > that goes
> > >     >     > to
> > >     >     >     the elasticsearch writer and also to the hdfs writer.
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     >     On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Matt Foley <
> > > mattf@apache.org>
> > >     > wrote:
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     >     > Casey, good to have controls like this.  Couple
> > > questions:
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     > 1. Regarding the “index” : “squid” name/value
pair,
> is
> > > the
> > >     > index name
> > >     >     >     > expected to always be a sensor name?  Or is the
given
> > > json
> > >     > structure
> > >     >     >     > subordinate to a sensor name in zookeeper?  Or can
we
> > > build
> > >     > arbitrary
> > >     >     >     > indexes with this new specification, independent
of
> > > sensor?
> > >     > Should
> > >     >     > there
> > >     >     >     > actually be a list of “indexes”, ie
> > >     >     >     > { “indexes” : [
> > >     >     >     >         {“index” : “name1”,
> > >     >     >     >                 …
> > >     >     >     >         },
> > >     >     >     >         {“index” : “name2”,
> > >     >     >     >                 …
> > >     >     >     >         } ]
> > >     >     >     > }
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     > 2. Would the filtering / writer selection logic
take
> > > place in
> > >     > the
> > >     >     > indexing
> > >     >     >     > topology splitter bolt?  Seems like that would have
> the
> > >     > smallest
> > >     >     > impact on
> > >     >     >     > current implementation, no?
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     > Sorry if these are already answered in PR-415, I
> > haven’t
> > > had
> > >     > time to
> > >     >     >     > review that one yet.
> > >     >     >     > Thanks,
> > >     >     >     > --Matt
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     > On 1/12/17, 12:55 PM, "Michael Miklavcic" <
> > >     >     > michael.miklavcic@gmail.com>
> > >     >     >     > wrote:
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     I like the flexibility and expressibility of
the
> > > first
> > >     > option
> > >     >     > with
> > >     >     >     > Stellar
> > >     >     >     >     filters.
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     M
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Casey Stella
<
> > >     >     > cestella@gmail.com>
> > >     >     >     > wrote:
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > As of METRON-652 <https://github.com/apache/
> > >     >     >     > incubator-metron/pull/415>, we
> > >     >     >     >     > will have decoupled the indexing configuration
> > > from the
> > >     >     > enrichment
> > >     >     >     >     > configuration.  As an immediate follow-up
to
> > that,
> > > I'd
> > >     > like to
> > >     >     >     > provide the
> > >     >     >     >     > ability to turn off and on writers via
the
> > > configs.  I'd
> > >     > like
> > >     >     > to get
> > >     >     >     > some
> > >     >     >     >     > community feedback on how the functionality
> > should
> > > work,
> > >     > if
> > >     >     > y'all are
> > >     >     >     >     > amenable. :)
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > As of now, we have 3 possible writers which
can
> > be
> > > used
> > >     > in the
> > >     >     >     > indexing
> > >     >     >     >     > topology:
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     >    - Solr
> > >     >     >     >     >    - Elasticsearch
> > >     >     >     >     >    - HDFS
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > HDFS is always used, elasticsearch or solr
is
> > used
> > >     > depending
> > >     >     > on how
> > >     >     >     > you
> > >     >     >     >     > start the indexing topology.
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > A couple of proposals come to mind immediately:
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > *Index Filtering*
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > You would be able to specify a filter as
> defined
> > > by a
> > >     > stellar
> > >     >     >     > statement
> > >     >     >     >     > (likely a reuse of the StellarFilter that
> exists
> > > in the
> > >     >     > Parsers)
> > >     >     >     > which
> > >     >     >     >     > would allow you to indicate on a
> > > message-by-message basis
> > >     >     > whether or
> > >     >     >     > not to
> > >     >     >     >     > write the message.
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > The semantics of this would be as follows:
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     >    - Default (i.e. unspecified) is to pass
> > > everything
> > >     > through
> > >     >     > (hence
> > >     >     >     >     >    backwards compatible with the current
> default
> > > config).
> > >     >     >     >     >    - Messages which have the associated
stellar
> > > statement
> > >     >     > evaluate
> > >     >     >     > to true
> > >     >     >     >     >    for the writer type will be written,
> otherwise
> > > not.
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > Sample indexing config which would write
out no
> > > messages
> > >     > to
> > >     >     > HDFS and
> > >     >     >     > write
> > >     >     >     >     > out only messages containing a field called
> > > "field1":
> > >     >     >     >     > {
> > >     >     >     >     >    "index" : "squid"
> > >     >     >     >     >   ,"batchSize" : 100
> > >     >     >     >     >   ,"filters" : {
> > >     >     >     >     >       "HDFS" : "false"
> > >     >     >     >     >      ,"ES" : "exists(field1)"
> > >     >     >     >     >                  }
> > >     >     >     >     > }
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > *Index On/Off Switch*
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > A simpler solution would be to just provide
a
> > list
> > > of
> > >     > writers
> > >     >     > to
> > >     >     >     > write
> > >     >     >     >     > messages.  The semantics would be as follows:
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     >    - If the list is unspecified, then the
> default
> > > is to
> > >     > write
> > >     >     > all
> > >     >     >     > messages
> > >     >     >     >     >    for every writer in the indexing topology
> > >     >     >     >     >    - If the list is specified, then a writer
> will
> > > write
> > >     > all
> > >     >     > messages
> > >     >     >     > if and
> > >     >     >     >     >    only if it is named in the list.
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > Sample indexing config which turns off
HDFS and
> > > keeps on
> > >     >     >     > Elasticsearch:
> > >     >     >     >     > {
> > >     >     >     >     >    "index" : "squid"
> > >     >     >     >     >   ,"batchSize" : 100
> > >     >     >     >     >   ,"writers" : [ "ES" ]
> > >     >     >     >     > }
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > Thanks in advance for the feedback!  Also,
if
> you
> > > have
> > >     > any
> > >     >     > other,
> > >     >     >     > better
> > >     >     >     >     > ideas than the ones presented here, let
me know
> > > too.
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > Best,
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >     > Casey
> > >     >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >     >
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     >
> > >     >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Nick Allen <nick@nickallen.org>

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