>> Do we need to provide the ability for users to decide to replicate the ACLs and replication cluster or not?
This feature allows users to sync two separate clusters which are having independent global-zookeeper (metadata-store) instances. So, this feature will not be limited to sync a few fields of policies but think in terms of auto creation and syncing namespaces/tenants to entirely different metadata-stores where they can not talk to each other. >> BTW, we already supported topic level replication cluster configuration[5], looks like in this case, [5] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12136 Again, #12136 talks about applying policies to topics but this PIP addresses a separate problem where it makes it possible to integrate independent/isolated metadata-stores with each other. Thanks, Rajan On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 6:29 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. > > > yes, local policies doesn't need to be replicate to other clusters and it > will only replicate global policies which is shared across multiple > clusters such tenant/namespace's identity-creation, ACLs, replication > clusters, etc. > > As described in this blog [1], section "Aggregation Replication". > Do we need to provide the ability for users to decide to replicate > the ACLs and replication cluster or not? > > Currently, if users want to achieve "Aggregation Replication", it needs > multiple configuration stores. So they need to maintain the namespace, > partitioned topics in each cluster. A new namespace created in one cluster, > it need to create the namespace in other clusters if they want to replicate > data to those clusters. > > After this proposal, they don't need to create a namespace for other > clusters, > Pulsar will help to replicate the configuration store changes to the > replicated cluster, > if the new created namespace with replication cluster A, B, and C in > cluster A, the > namespace will be replicated to B and C. > > But for the ACLs and replication clusters, it should be controlled by > users? > e.g. only replicate the namespace to B and C, but not the replication > clusters and ACLs. > So that we can achieve "Aggregation Replication" with this proposal. > > > Topic that will be used to share policies across clusters is configurable > and it can be named anything. However, we should keep it a separate topic > as it requires unique schema and special handling to synchronize policies > across the clusters. > > Yes, looks like currently we already have a mechanism to replicate > policies. > We have a system topic under the namespace "__change_events", which only > has > topic policy changes for now. It can replicate anything under a namespace. > We have defined "EventType"[2] in PulsarEvent(structure used in > "__change_events"). > And we already have a implementation for selective PulsarEvent > replication[3], and schema > replication[4]. > > So it looks like we can use the "__change_events" to replicate namespace > policies, and use a > new topic which belongs to a system namespace to replicate > tenant/namespace's identity-creation, > partitioned topic creation? > > BTW, we already supported topic level replication cluster configuration[5], > looks like in this case, > the partitioned topic is created first in one cluster without replication > clusters first, after the replication > clusters changed, pulsar will replicate the partitioned topic to remote > cluster. The same mechanism is > required for non-partitioned topics(users might disabled the topic > auto-creation). > > [1] > > https://www.splunk.com/en_us/blog/devops/geo-replication-in-apache-pulsar-part-2-patterns-and-practices.html > [2] > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/4dcb166e0bfcce7fc85fd8d59a25b881f6f9c6fa/pulsar-common/src/main/java/org/apache/pulsar/common/events/PulsarEvent.java#L36 > [3] > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-92%3A-Topic-policy-across-multiple-clusters > [4] > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-88%3A-Replicate-schemas-across-multiple > [5] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/12136 > > Regards, > Penghui > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 6:37 AM Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> If it contains namespace policy replication, There are some policies > no > > need to replicate to another cluster > > yes, local policies doesn't need to be replicate to other clusters and it > > will only replicate global policies which is shared across multiple > > clusters such tenant/namespace's identity-creation, ACLs, replication > > clusters, etc. > > > > >> The new partitioned topic also needs to be replicated to the remote > > cluster? > > Yes. > > > > Topic that will be used to share policies across clusters is configurable > > and it can be named anything. However, we should keep it a separate topic > > as it requires unique schema and special handling to synchronize policies > > across the clusters. > > > > Thanks, > > Rajan > > > > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 9:12 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Rajan, > > > > > > Thanks for the great proposal. > > > > > > Will all the namespace policies be replicated to the remote cluster? > > > I noticed the PIP title mentioned policies, but looks like from the > > > `MetadataChangeEvent`, > > > no namespaces policies defined. If it contains namespace policy > > > replication, > > > There are some policies no need to replicate to another cluster, > > > for example, the rate limiter, max producers/consumers limiter. > > > In > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-92%3A-Topic-policy-across-multiple-clusters > > > , > > > it introduced a --global option to provide ability to apply the policy > in > > > global or local. > > > > > > The new partitioned topic also needs to be replicated to the remote > > > cluster? > > > > > > Currently, we already have a PulsarEvent struct to define the pulsar > > system > > > events, > > > Looks like we can use a unified event definition by PulsarEvent. > > > > > > Others look good to me. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Penghui > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 1:32 AM Joe F <joefranc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:07 PM Rajan Dhabalia < > rdhaba...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I would like to start VOTE on PIP-136: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13728 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Rajan > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 4:58 PM Rajan Dhabalia < > dhabalia...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> How do we designate the host broker? Is it manual? How does it > > > work > > > > > > when the host broker is removed from the cluster? > > > > > > No, it will not be manual but as I explained earlier a broker > which > > > > has a > > > > > > failover consumer to consume remote events will be the publisher > > for > > > > > > metadata update. If that broker is removed then a new failover > > > > > > consumer/broker will be selected for the same. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I look forward to seeing more about this design for conflict > > > > > resolution. > > > > > > Sure, I have updated PIP to handle such race condition: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13728 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> (1) scenarios where the Pulsar cluster operators and tenant > > admins > > > > > are > > > > > > different entities and tenants can be malicious, or more > probably, > > > > write > > > > > > bad code that will produce malicious outcomes. > > > > > > I agree, Pulsar should have provision to prevent such scenarios > > where > > > > > > changes from one tenant in a cluster can impact other clusters. > > This > > > > PIP > > > > > > considers the tenant/admin will be the same at both the ends but > > that > > > > can > > > > > > not be true in all cases. We can add an enhancement later or we > can > > > > > create > > > > > > a separate PIP to start discussion with the possible solutions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Rajan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 9:59 AM Joe F <joefranc...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> >On my first reading, it wasn't clear if there was only one > topic > > > > > >> required for this feature. I now see that the topic is not tied > > to a > > > > > >> specific tenant or namespace. As such, we can avoid complicated > > > > > >> authorization questions by putting the required event topic(s) > > into > > > a > > > > > >> "system" tenant and namespace > > > > > >> > > > > > >> We should consider complicated questions. We can say why we > chose > > > not > > > > to > > > > > >> address it, or why it does not apply. for a particular situation > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Many namespace policies are administered by tenants. As such > any > > > > tenant > > > > > >> can load this topic. Is it possible for one abusive tenant to > > make > > > > your > > > > > >> system topic dysfunctional? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Pulsar committers should think about > > > > > >> (1) scenarios where the Pulsar cluster operators and tenant > admins > > > > are > > > > > >> different entities and tenants can be malicious, or more > probably, > > > > write > > > > > >> bad code that will produce malicious outcomes. > > > > > >> (2) whether the changes introduce additional SPOFs into the > > > cluster. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I don't think this PIP has those issues, but as a matter of > > > > practice, I > > > > > >> would like to see backend/system PIPs consider these questions > > and > > > > > >> explicitly state the conclusions with rationale > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Joe > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 9:27 PM Michael Marshall < > > > mmarsh...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks for your responses. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I don't see a need of protobuf for this particular usecase > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > If no one else feels strongly on this point, I am good with > > using > > > a > > > > > >> POJO. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > It doesn't matter if it's system-topic or not because it's > > > > > >> > > configurable and the admin of the system can decide and > > > configure > > > > it > > > > > >> > > according to the required persistent policy. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On my first reading, it wasn't clear if there was only one > topic > > > > > >> > required for this feature. I now see that the topic is not > tied > > > to a > > > > > >> > specific tenant or namespace. As such, we can avoid > complicated > > > > > >> > authorization questions by putting the required event topic(s) > > > into > > > > a > > > > > >> > "system" tenant and namespace, by default. The `pulsar/system` > > > > tenant > > > > > >> > and namespace seem appropriate to me. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > I would keep the system topic > > > > > >> > > separate because this topic serves a specific purpose with > > > > specific > > > > > >> > schema, > > > > > >> > > replication policy and retention policy. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I think we need a more formal definition for system topics. > This > > > > topic > > > > > >> > is exactly the kind of topic I would call a system topic: its > > > > intended > > > > > >> > producers and consumers are Pulsar components. However, > because > > > > > >> > this feature can live on a topic in a system namespace, we can > > > avoid > > > > > >> > the classification discussion for this PIP. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Source region will have a broker which will create a > failover > > > > > >> consumer on > > > > > >> > > that topic and a broker with an active consumer will watch > the > > > > > >> metadata > > > > > >> > > changes and publish the changes to the event topic. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > How do we designate the host broker? Is it manual? How does it > > > work > > > > > >> > when the host broker is removed from the cluster? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > If we collocate the active consumer with the broker hosting > the > > > > event > > > > > >> > topic, can we skip creating the failover consumer? > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > PIP briefly talks about it but I will update the PIP with > more > > > > > >> > > explanation. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > I look forward to seeing more about this design for conflict > > > > > resolution. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > > >> > Michael > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 3:01 AM Rajan Dhabalia < > > > > dhabalia...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Please find my response inline. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 9:17 PM Michael Marshall < > > > > > >> mmarsh...@apache.org> > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I think this is a very appropriate direction to take > > Pulsar's > > > > > >> > > > geo-replication. Your proposal is essentially to make the > > > > > >> > > > inter-cluster configuration event driven. This increases > > fault > > > > > >> > > > tolerance and better decouples clusters. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Thank you for your detailed proposal. After reading > through > > > it, > > > > I > > > > > >> have > > > > > >> > > > some questions :) > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 1. What do you think about using protobuf to define the > > event > > > > > >> > > > protocol? I know we already have a topic policy event > stream > > > > > >> > > > defined with Java POJOs, but since this feature is > > > specifically > > > > > >> > > > designed for egressing cloud providers, ensuring compact > > data > > > > > >> transfer > > > > > >> > > > would keep egress costs down. Additionally, protobuf can > > help > > > > make > > > > > >> it > > > > > >> > > > clear that the schema is strict, should evolve > thoughtfully, > > > and > > > > > >> > > > should be designed to work between clusters of different > > > > versions. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >>> I don't see a need of protobuf for this particular > > usecase > > > > > >> because > > > > > >> > of > > > > > >> > > two reasons: > > > > > >> > > >> a. policy changes don't generate huge traffic which > could > > > be > > > > 1 > > > > > >> rps > > > > > >> > b. > > > > > >> > > and it doesn't need performance optimization. > > > > > >> > > >> It should be similar as storing policy in text instead > > > > protobuf > > > > > >> > which > > > > > >> > > doesn't impact footprint size or performance due to limited > > > number > > > > > of > > > > > >> > > >> update operations and relatively less complexity. I > agree > > > that > > > > > >> > protobuf > > > > > >> > > could be another option but in this case it's not needed. > > Also, > > > > POJO > > > > > >> > > >> can also support schema and versioning. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 2. In your view, which tenant/namespace will host > > > > > >> > > > `metadataSyncEventTopic`? Will there be several of these > > > topics > > > > or > > > > > >> is > > > > > >> > > > it just hosted in a system tenant/namespace? This question > > > gets > > > > > back > > > > > >> > > > to my questions about system topics on this mailing list > > last > > > > week > > > > > >> > [0]. I > > > > > >> > > > view this topic as a system topic, so we'd need to make > sure > > > > that > > > > > it > > > > > >> > > > has the right authorization rules and that it won't be > > > affected > > > > by > > > > > >> > calls > > > > > >> > > > like "clearNamespaceBacklog". > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> It doesn't matter if it's system-topic or not because > > it's > > > > > >> > > configurable and the admin of the system can decide and > > > configure > > > > it > > > > > >> > > according to the required persistent policy. I would keep > the > > > > system > > > > > >> > topic > > > > > >> > > separate because this topic serves a specific purpose with > > > > specific > > > > > >> > schema, > > > > > >> > > replication policy and retention policy. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 3. Which broker will host the metadata update publisher? I > > > > assume > > > > > we > > > > > >> > > > want the producer to be collocated with the bundle that > > hosts > > > > the > > > > > >> > > > event topic. How will this be coordinated? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> It's already explained into PIP in section: "Event > > publisher > > > > and > > > > > >> > handler" > > > > > >> > > >> Every isolated cluster deployed on a separate cloud > > platform > > > > will > > > > > >> > have a > > > > > >> > > source region and part of replicated clusters for the event > > > topic. > > > > > The > > > > > >> > > Source region will have a broker which will create a > failover > > > > > >> consumer on > > > > > >> > > that topic and a broker with an active consumer will watch > the > > > > > >> metadata > > > > > >> > > changes and publish the changes to the event topic. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 4. Why isn't a topic a `ResourceType`? Is this because the > > > topic > > > > > >> level > > > > > >> > > > policies already have this feature? If so, is there a way > to > > > > > >> integrate > > > > > >> > > > this feature with the existing topic policy feature? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Yes, ResourceType can be extensible to a topic as well. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > 5. By decentralizing the metadata store, it looks like > there > > > is > > > > a > > > > > >> > > > chance for conflicts due to concurrent updates. How do we > > > handle > > > > > >> those > > > > > >> > > > conflicts? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> PIP briefly talks about it but I will update the PIP > with > > > more > > > > > >> > > explanation. MetadataChangeEvent contains source-cluster and > > > > updated > > > > > >> > time. > > > > > >> > > Also, resources Tenant/Namespace will also contain > > > lastUpdatedTime > > > > > >> which > > > > > >> > > will help to destination clusters to handle stale/duplicate > > > events > > > > > and > > > > > >> > race > > > > > >> > > conditions. Also, snapshot-sync an additional task helps all > > > > > clusters > > > > > >> to > > > > > >> > be > > > > > >> > > synced with each other eventually. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I'll also note that I previously proposed a system event > > topic > > > > > here > > > > > >> > > > [1] and it was proposed again here [2]. Those features > were > > > for > > > > > >> > > > different use cases, but ultimately looked very similar. > In > > my > > > > > >> view, a > > > > > >> > > > stream of system events is a very natural feature to > expect > > > in a > > > > > >> > > > streaming technology. I wonder if there is a way to > > generalize > > > > > this > > > > > >> > > > feature to fulfill local cluster consumers and > > geo-replication > > > > > >> > > > consumers. Even if this PIP only implements the > > > geo-replication > > > > > >> > > > portion of the feature, it'd be good to design it in an > > > > extensible > > > > > >> > fashion. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> I think answer (2) addresses this concern as well. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks, > > > > > >> > > > Michael > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > [0] > > > > > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/pj4n4wzm3do8nkc52l7g7obh0sktzm17 > > > > > >> > > > [1] > > > > > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/h4cbvwjdomktsq2jo66x5qpvhdrqk871 > > > > > >> > > > [2] > > > > > >> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/0xkg0gpsobp0dbgb6tp9xq097lpm65bx > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:33 PM Rajan Dhabalia < > > > > > >> rdhaba...@apache.org> > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Hi, > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > I would like to start a discussion about PIP-136: Sync > > > Pulsar > > > > > >> > policies > > > > > >> > > > > across multiple clouds. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > PIP documentation: > > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13728 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > *Motivation* > > > > > >> > > > > Apache Pulsar is a cloud-native, distributed messaging > > > > framework > > > > > >> > which > > > > > >> > > > > natively provides geo-replication. Many organizations > > deploy > > > > > >> pulsar > > > > > >> > > > > instances on-prem and on multiple different cloud > > providers > > > > and > > > > > at > > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > > > same > > > > > >> > > > > time they would like to enable replication between > > multiple > > > > > >> clusters > > > > > >> > > > > deployed in different cloud providers. Pulsar already > > > provides > > > > > >> > various > > > > > >> > > > > proxy options (Pulsar proxy/ enterprise proxy solutions > on > > > > SNI) > > > > > to > > > > > >> > > > fulfill > > > > > >> > > > > security requirements when brokers are deployed on > > different > > > > > >> security > > > > > >> > > > zones > > > > > >> > > > > connected with each other. However, sometimes it's not > > > > possible > > > > > to > > > > > >> > share > > > > > >> > > > > metadata-store (global zookeeper) between pulsar > clusters > > > > > >> deployed on > > > > > >> > > > > separate cloud provider platforms, and synchronizing > > > > > configuration > > > > > >> > > > metadata > > > > > >> > > > > (policies) can be a critical path to share > > > > > tenant/namespace/topic > > > > > >> > > > policies > > > > > >> > > > > between clusters and administrate pulsar policies > > uniformly > > > > > across > > > > > >> > all > > > > > >> > > > > clusters. Therefore, we need a mechanism to sync > > > configuration > > > > > >> > metadata > > > > > >> > > > > between clusters deployed on the different cloud > > platforms. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > *Sync Pulsar policies across multiple clouds* > > > > > >> > > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/13728 > > > > > >> > > > > Prototype git-hub-link > > > > > >> > > > > < > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/rdhabalia/pulsar/commit/e59803b942918076ce6376b50b35ca827a49bcf6 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > > >> > > > > Rajan > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
