Hmm, I'm not sure I agree that in most cases users would accept the default
batch size, especially in sizeable environments.
In search tiers like ES it is very important, and should be tuned to the
specific data that you're sending because it depends on the number of
bytes, not necessarily number of messages.
This makes me wonder if a separate enhancement would be to allow number of
entries OR size of entries to be the batch size. If that is the case, I
could see a sane default using number of bytes to send to search being more
static. However, I don't know how realistic that is in Storm.
Jon
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:51 AM Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org> wrote:
> >
> > Nick's concerns about my suggestion were that it was overly complex and
> > hard to grok and that we could dispense with backwards compatibility and
> > make people do a bit more work on the default case for the benefits of a
> > simpler advanced case. (Nick, make sure I don't misstate your position)
>
>
> I will add is that in my mind, the majority case would be a user specifying
> the outputs, but not things like 'batchSize' or 'when'. I think in the
> majority case, the user would accept whatever the default batch size is.
>
> Here are alternatives suggestions for all the examples that you provided
> previously.
>
> Base Case
>
> - The user must always specify the 'outputs' for clarity.
> - Uses default index name, batch size and when = true.
>
> {
> 'elasticsearch': {},
> 'hdfs': {}
> }
>
> <
> https://gist.github.com/nickwallen/489735b65cdb38aae6e45cec7633a0a1#writer-non-specific-case
> >Writer-non-specific
> Case
>
> - There are no global overrides, as in Casey's proposal.
> - Easier to grok IMO.
>
> {
> 'elasticsearch': {
> 'index': 'foo',
> 'batchSize': 100
> },
> 'hdfs': {
> 'index': 'foo',
> 'batchSize': 100
> }
> }
>
> <
> https://gist.github.com/nickwallen/489735b65cdb38aae6e45cec7633a0a1#writer-specific-case-without-filters
> >Writer-specific
> case without filters
>
> {
> 'elasticsearch': {
> 'index': 'foo',
> 'batchSize': 1
> },
> 'hdfs': {
> 'index': 'foo',
> 'batchSize': 100
> }
> }
>
> <
> https://gist.github.com/nickwallen/489735b65cdb38aae6e45cec7633a0a1#writer-specific-case-with-filters
> >Writer-specific
> case with filters
>
> - Instead of having to say when=false, just don't configure HDFS
>
> {
> 'elasticsearch': {
> 'index': 'foo',
> 'batchSize': 100,
> 'when': 'exists(field1)'
> }
> }
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dave,
> > For the benefit of posterity and people who might not be as deeply
> > entangled in the system as we have been, I'll recap things and hopefully
> > answer your question in the process.
> >
> > Historically the index configuration is split between the enrichment
> > configs and the global configs.
> >
> > - The global configs really controls configs that apply to all
> sensors.
> > Historically this has been stuff like index connection strings, etc.
> > - The sensor-specific configs which control things that vary by
> sensor.
> >
> > As of Metron-652 (in review currently), we moved the sensor specific
> > configs from the enrichment configs. The proposal here is to increase
> the
> > granularity of the the sensor specific files to make them support index
> > writer-specific configs. Right now in the indexing topology, we have 2
> > writers (fixed): ES/Solr and HDFS.
> >
> > The proposed configuration would allow you to either specify a blanket
> > sensor-level config for the index name and batchSize and/or override at
> the
> > writer level, thereby supporting a couple of use-cases:
> >
> > - Turning off certain index writers (e.g. HDFS)
> > - Filtering the messages written to certain index writers
> >
> > The two competing configs between Nick and I are as follows:
> >
> > - I want to make sure we keep the old sensor-specific defaults with
> > writer-specific overrides available
> > - Nick thought we could simplify the permutations by making the
> indexing
> > config only the writer-level configs.
> >
> > My concerns about Nick's suggestion were that the default and majority
> > case, specifying the index and the batchSize for all writers (th eone we
> > support now) would require more configuration.
> >
> > Nick's concerns about my suggestion were that it was overly complex and
> > hard to grok and that we could dispense with backwards compatibility and
> > make people do a bit more work on the default case for the benefits of a
> > simpler advanced case. (Nick, make sure I don't misstate your position).
> >
> > Casey
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:54 AM, David Lyle <dlyle65...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Casey,
> > >
> > > Can you give me a level set of what your thinking is now? I think it's
> > > global control of all index types + overrides on a per-type basis.
> Fwiw,
> > > I'm totally for that, but I want to make sure I'm not imposing my
> > > pre-concieved notions on your consensus-driven ones.
> > >
> > > -D....
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am suggesting that, yes. The configs are essentially the same as
> > > yours,
> > > > except there is an override specified at the top level. Without
> that,
> > in
> > > > order to specify both HDFS and ES have batch sizes of 100, you have
> to
> > > > explicitly configure each. It's less that I'm trying to have
> backwards
> > > > compatibility and more that I'm trying to make the majority case
> easy:
> > > both
> > > > writers write everything to a specified index name with a specified
> > batch
> > > > size (which is what we have now). Beyond that, I want to allow for
> > > > specifying an override for the config on a writer-by-writer basis for
> > > those
> > > > who need it.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Are you saying we support all of these variants? I realize you are
> > > > trying
> > > > > to have some backwards compatibility, but this also makes it harder
> > > for a
> > > > > user to grok (for me at least).
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally I like my original example as there are fewer
> > > sub-structures,
> > > > > like 'writerConfig', which makes the whole thing simpler and easier
> > to
> > > > > grok. But maybe others will think your proposal is just as easy to
> > > grok.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Casey Stella <ceste...@gmail.com
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Ok, so here's what I'm thinking based on the discussion:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Keeping the configs that we have now (batchSize and index)
> as
> > > > > defaults
> > > > > > for the unspecified writer-specific case
> > > > > > - Adding the config Nick suggested
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Base Case*:
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - all writers write all messages
> > > > > > - index named the same as the sensor for all writers
> > > > > > - batchSize of 1 for all writers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Writer-non-specific case*:
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > "index" : "foo"
> > > > > > ,"batchSize" : 100
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - All writers write all messages
> > > > > > - index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all
> > writers
> > > > > > - batchSize is 100 for all writers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Writer-specific case without filters*
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > "index" : "foo"
> > > > > > ,"batchSize" : 1
> > > > > > , "writerConfig" :
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > "elasticsearch" : {
> > > > > > "batchSize" : 100
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - All writers write all messages
> > > > > > - index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all
> > writers
> > > > > > - batchSize is 1 for HDFS and 100 for elasticsearch writers
> > > > > > - NOTE: I could override the index name too
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Writer-specific case with filters*
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > "index" : "foo"
> > > > > > ,"batchSize" : 1
> > > > > > , "writerConfig" :
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > "elasticsearch" : {
> > > > > > "batchSize" : 100,
> > > > > > "when" : "exists(field1)"
> > > > > > },
> > > > > > "hdfs" : {
> > > > > > "when" : "false"
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - ES writer writes messages which have field1, HDFS doesn't
> > > > > > - index is named "foo", different from the sensor for all
> > writers
> > > > > > - 100 for elasticsearch writers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Carolyn Duby <
> > cd...@hortonworks.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > For larger installations you need to control what is indexed so
> > you
> > > > > don’t
> > > > > > > end up with a nasty elastic search situation and so you can
> mine
> > > the
> > > > > data
> > > > > > > later for reports and training ml models.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Carolyn
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 1/13/17, 9:40 AM, "Casey Stella" <ceste...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >OH that's a good idea!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Nick Allen <
> n...@nickallen.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> 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 <
> > > ceste...@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 <
> > > > > > > >> > kylerichards...@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 <
> > > ma...@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" <
> ceste...@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 <
> > > > > > ma...@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" <
> > > > ceste...@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
> <
> > > > > > > >> > ma...@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" <
> > > > > > > ceste...@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
> > > > <
> > > > > > > >> > > > ma...@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.miklav...@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 <
> > > > > > > >> > > > > > ceste...@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 <n...@nickallen.org>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Allen <n...@nickallen.org>
>
--
Jon
Sent from my mobile device
