Rajini, The new proposal sounds good to me too. My only question is what happens to those existing quotas on client-id. Do we just treat them as the quota for that client-id under ANONYMOUS user name?
Thanks, Jun On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Rajini Sivaram < rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Jay, > > Thank you for the quick feedback. It shouldn't be too hard since I had a PR > earlier along these lines anyway. > > Jun, are you ok with this approach? If everyone agrees, I will close this > vote, update the KIP and give some more time for discussions. > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > This sounds a lot better to me--hopefully it isn't too much harder! I do > > think if it is possible to do this directly that will be better for users > > than having an intermediate step since we always have to work through > > migrating people who have setup quotas already from the old way to the > new > > way. > > > > -Jay > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > I do think client-id is a valid and useful grouping for quotas even in > > > secure clusters - but only if clientA of user1 is treated as a > different > > > client-id from clientA of user2. Grouping of clients of a user enables > > > users to allocate their quota effectively to their clients (eg. > guarantee > > > that critical event processing clients are not throttled by auditing > > > clients). When the KIP was down-sized to support only user-based > quotas, > > I > > > was hoping that we could extend it at a later time to enable > hierarchical > > > quotas. But I understand that it can be confusing to switch the > semantics > > > of quotas based on modes set in the brokers. So let me try once again > to > > > promote the original KIP-55. At the time, I did have a flag to revert > to > > > the existing client-id behavior to maintain compatibility. But perhaps > > that > > > is not necessary. > > > > > > How does this sound? > > > > > > - Quotas may be configured for users. Sub-quotas may be configured > for > > > client-ids of a user. Quotas may also be configured for client-ids > of > > > users > > > with unlimited quota (Long.MaxValue). > > > - Users who don't have a quota override are allocated a configurable > > > default quota. > > > - Client-ids without a sub-quota override share the remainder of the > > > user quota if the user has a quota limit. Default quotas may be > > defined > > > for > > > clients of users with unlimited quota. > > > - For an insecure or single-user secure cluster, the existing > > client-id > > > based quota semantics can be achieved by configuring unlimited quota > > for > > > the user and sub-quota configuration for client-id that matches the > > > current > > > client-id quota configuration. > > > - For a cluster mixes both secure and insecure access, client-id > > quotas > > > can be set for unauthenticated clients (unlimited quota for > ANONYMOUS, > > > quotas for client-ids) and user quotas can be set for authenticated > > > users. > > > - In a multi-user cluster, it is currently possible to define quotas > > for > > > client-ids that span multiple users. This will no longer be > supported. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Gwen Shapira <g...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > I am not crazy about modes either. An earlier proposal supported both > > > > client-ids and users at the same time, and it made more sense to me. > I > > > > believe it was dropped without proper discussion (Basically, Jun > > > > mentioned it is complex and Rajini agreed to drop it). We should > > > > probably rethink the complexity of supporting both vs the limitations > > > > of "modes". > > > > > > > > As you said, we will have secure clients authenticating with users > and > > > > insecure clients authenticating with client-ids at the same time. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > Hey Rajini, > > > > > > > > > > 1. That makes sense to me. Is that reflected in the documentation > > > > anywhere > > > > > (I couldn't really find it)? Is there a way to discover that > > > definition? > > > > We > > > > > do way better when we right this stuff down so it has an official > > > > > definition users and developers can work off of... > > > > > 2. If client id is a thing that makes sense even when you have > users, > > > why > > > > > would you not want to quota on it? > > > > > > > > > > I am not wild about these "modes" where you boot the cluster in > mode > > X > > > > and > > > > > it behaves in one way and in mode Y and it behaves in another. It > is > > > > > complex then for users who expect to be able to set quotas but then > > > have > > > > to > > > > > be able to get access to the filesystem of the kafka nodes to > > discover > > > > what > > > > > mode the cluster is in to know which kind of quota is applicable. > > > > > > > > > > I guess there are two ways to think about a feature: one is the > > > increment > > > > > from where we are, and the other is the resulting state after that > > > > > increment is taken. What I am asking is not "is this a low cost > step > > > from > > > > > where we are?" which everyone can agree that it is, but rather > "does > > > this > > > > > make sense as an end state--i.e. if you were starting fresh with > > > neither > > > > > users nor client ids nor quotas would you end up with this?". > > > > > > > > > > In terms of use cases, I think that we support mixing secure and > > > insecure > > > > > access on a single cluster so presumably in that case you would > want > > to > > > > be > > > > > able to quota insecure users based on client id and secure users > > based > > > on > > > > > user, right? Likewise, as you said, client id is a valid grouping > > even > > > in > > > > > the presence of users, so it might be the case that several apps > that > > > are > > > > > all part of the same system might access Kafka under a single user, > > but > > > > you > > > > > might have different quotas for these different apps. Basically if > > > client > > > > > id is a valid grouping even in the presence of users (willing to > > debate > > > > > this point, btw!) then you would want to quota on it. > > > > > > > > > > -Jay > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:49 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Jay, > > > > >> > > > > >> Thank you for the feedback. > > > > >> > > > > >> 1. I think it is good to have a single concept of identity, but > > > multiple > > > > >> ways of grouping clients for different functions. Client-id is a > > > logical > > > > >> grouping of clients with a meaningful name that is used in client > > > > metrics > > > > >> and logs. User principal is an authenticated user or a grouping of > > > > >> unauthenticated users chosen by the broker and is used for ACLs. > In > > my > > > > >> view, in a multi-user system, there is a hierarchy - user owns > zero > > or > > > > more > > > > >> clients. (principal, client-id) defines a safe group, but the > > shorter > > > > >> unsafe client-id is sufficient in client metrics and logs. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> 2. KIP-55 was initially written to support hierarchical quotas > > (quotas > > > > for > > > > >> user1-clientA, user2-clientA etc), but Jun's view was that the > > > > complexity > > > > >> was not justified since there is no clear requirement for this. > The > > > > >> cut-down version of the KIP is clearly a lot simpler. But I think > > your > > > > >> suggestion is to enable non-hierarchical user quotas and client-id > > > > quotas > > > > >> at the same time. Basically treat users and client-ids as distinct > > > > entities > > > > >> like topics and allow quotas to be applied to each of these > > entities. > > > I > > > > >> agree that we want to support quotas simultaneously on different > > > > entities > > > > >> like topics and users. I am less convinced of client-id and user > > being > > > > >> > > > > >> distinct entities that require separate quotas at the same time. > And > > > > >> treating client-id and user as distinct entities makes it harder > to > > > > >> implement hierarchical quotas in future. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> A single user system needs only client-id quotas, and multi-tenant > > > > system > > > > >> cannot use client-id quotas since we need to guarantee that one > > > tenant's > > > > >> quotas can never be used by another tenant. I suppose a multi-user > > > > cluster > > > > >> where users trust each other could apply separate quotas for both > > > > clients > > > > >> and users, but I am not sure if there is a usecase that can't be > > > > satisfied > > > > >> with just client-id based quotas for this case. Do you have a > > usecase > > > in > > > > >> mind where you want to apply separate quotas for clients and users > > > > >> simultaneously? > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Jay Kreps <j...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Super sorry to come in late on this one. Rajini, I had two quick > > > > >> questions > > > > >> > I think we should be able to answer: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > 1. Do client ids make sense in a world which has users? If > not > > > > should > > > > >> we > > > > >> > unify them the way Hadoop did (without auth the user is a > kind > > of > > > > best > > > > >> > effort honor system identity). This came up in the discussion > > > > thread > > > > >> > but I > > > > >> > didn't really see a crisp answer. Basically, what is the > > > > definition of > > > > >> > "client id" and what is the definition of "user" and how do > the > > > > >> concepts > > > > >> > relate? > > > > >> > 2. If both client ids and users are sensible distinct notions > > and > > > > we > > > > >> > want to maintain both, why don't we just support quotas on > > both? > > > If > > > > >> they > > > > >> > both make sense then you would have a reason to set quotas at > > > both > > > > >> > levels. > > > > >> > Why have this "mode" that you set that swaps between only > being > > > > able > > > > >> to > > > > >> > use > > > > >> > one and the other? I should be able to set quotas at both > > levels. > > > > >> Going > > > > >> > forward the model we had discussed with quotas was > potentially > > > > being > > > > >> > able > > > > >> > to set quotas for many things independently (say at the topic > > > > level), > > > > >> > and I > > > > >> > don't think it would make sense to extend this mode approach > to > > > > those. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -Jay > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > > > >> > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I would like to initiate the vote for KIP-55. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > The KIP details are here: KIP-55: Secure quotas for > > authenticated > > > > users > > > > >> > > < > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-55%3A+Secure+Quotas+for+Authenticated+Users > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > . > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > The JIRA KAFKA-3492 < > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-3492 > > > > >> > > >has > > > > >> > > a draft PR here: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/1256. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Thank you... > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Regards, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Rajini > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Regards, > > > > >> > > > > >> Rajini > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards, > > Rajini >
