Re: [discuss] consider revert the feature of multi-tenancy
Hi, > the following description assumes that multi-tenancy = resource control, the > two words can be interchanged. Are there any objections? (Jinrui): Just like how I believe that multi-tenancy and multi-user are not the same thing, regarding the suggestion to interchange "multi-tenancy" and "resource control," while they may have some similarities in concept, they are not interchangeable. Multi-tenancy is a specific approach to architecture that enables multiple tenants to share the same resources while keeping their data isolated, whereas resource control is a broader term that can refer to any mechanism used to manage and allocate system resources. > Based on this, continue to infer, if it is found that the released version > has a bug a few days after it was released, should the release be cancelled, > and it is better to wait for the bug to be fixed. (Jinrui): Actually, we were not discussing how to do code control. But since you brought up the issue of code quality, do you think the current code is of sufficient quality to be merged? Or did you notice the issue when reviewing the code? Of course, I understand that we don't have a quantifiable standard to judge whether code is mergeable or not, and everyone has their own criteria for making that judgment. Regarding your question about cancelling a release if a bug is found a few days after it was released, I think it depends on the severity of the bug and the impact it has on users. If the bug is minor and does not affect the core functionality of the software, it may be acceptable to wait for the bug to be fixed in the next release. However, if the bug is severe and causes major issues for users, it may be necessary to cancel the release and fix the bug immediately. > As for the fact that it hasn’t been fixed for two days, this function is > being discussed whether it should be discarded or not. Does it still take > time to fix bugs? (Jinrui): I didn't fully understand what you meant, could you please explain it again? Thanks, Zhang Jinrui > 2023年4月12日 下午1:35，Chao Wang 写道： > > Hi all, > > > It seems that Houliang didn't make it very clear before. Let me add some > more information. > > >> If you think this code is doing multi tenant things now, why do we need to >> change the name to some other words like resource control ? Is it > just to >> prevent users from misunderstandings from the definition? If that's the >> case, does it mean that users perceive multi tenancy as different from what >> we do? This is contradictory. > > > Why change multi-tenancy to resource control is just because everyone’s > perception of multi-tenancy is not very unified. It may be more unified to > change it to resource control. This should not be contradictory. > > > Suppose, under the advance statement in pr, the following description assumes > that multi-tenancy = resource control, the two words can be interchanged. Are > there any objections? > > >> It has been two days since this code was merged, and I don't know if anyone >> is fixing the issue I mentioned. Bug is definitely accepted, but I don't >> think this issue belongs to a 'bug' because it failed even the most basic >> functional testing. > > > > > From your test, it is true that there is a problem with this pr, and there is > no pr fix at present. For the stability of the code base, it should be better > to revert, even if this function is turned off by default (reminds me of > developing a new version of distributed Framework, it seems that many codes > are merged when they can't run, I don't know if it's suitable for this > scenario). Then according to this inference, whether all PRs in the future > have to repair and submit bugfix immediately once a bug is found, and it is > better to revert after a certain period of time (assuming 2 days). Based on > this, continue to infer, if it is found that the released version has a bug a > few days after it was released, should the release be cancelled, and it is > better to wait for the bug to be fixed. > > > As for the fact that it hasn’t been fixed for two days, this function is > being discussed whether it should be discarded or not. Does it still take > time to fix bugs? > > > > > Thanks! > > > Chao Wang > BONC ltd > On 4/12/2023 11:26，张金瑞<329920...@qq.com.INVALID> wrote： > Hi all, > > > Although it seems that we have reached an agreement on what this PR really > did, there are a few issues that I think are still unclear and need to be > further discussed. > > > > @Houliang said in previous mail: "a user is a tenant, and each tenant > has different resources. This is also multi-tenancy" > (Jinrui) Everyone difinitely can have their own understanding of > multi-tenancy but I don't think "Tenant is equal to User". We can refer the > definition of MultiTenancy from wikipedia > here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitenancy. I think no matter > how we define the concept of
Re: [discuss] consider revert the feature of multi-tenancy
nancy" and >> "resource control," while they may have some similarities in concept, they >> are not interchangeable. > > First of all, you misunderstood me. I never said that multi-tenancy and > multi-user are the same thing. What I want to emphasize is: one user per > tenant is also one of the ways to realize multi-tenancy, and one tenant > manages one database, which is also one of the ways to realize multi-tenancy, > and dories, spanner also has such an implementation. > >> (Jinrui): multi-tenancy is a specific approach to architecture that enables >> multiple tenants to share the same resources while keeping their data >> isolated, whereas resource control is a broader term that can refer to any >> mechanism used to manage and allocate system resources. > > Second: why can't we call it multi-tenant? We can achieve logical isolation > of data through this feature and auth permission, and we can also manage and > control users and database resources. Doesn't this just verify what you said > above? > > > > > > > Thanks, > --- > Houliang Qi > BONC, Ltd > > > Replied Message > | From | Jinrui 张金瑞<329920...@qq.com.INVALID> | > | Date | 04/12/2023 14:55 | > | To | | > | Subject | Re: [discuss] consider revert the feature of multi-tenancy | > Hi, > > > the following description assumes that multi-tenancy = resource control, the > two words can be interchanged. Are there any objections? > > (Jinrui): Just like how I believe that multi-tenancy and multi-user are not > the same thing, regarding the suggestion to interchange "multi-tenancy" and > "resource control," while they may have some similarities in concept, they > are not interchangeable. Multi-tenancy is a specific approach to architecture > that enables multiple tenants to share the same resources while keeping their > data isolated, whereas resource control is a broader term that can refer to > any mechanism used to manage and allocate system resources. > > Based on this, continue to infer, if it is found that the released version > has a bug a few days after it was released, should the release be cancelled, > and it is better to wait for the bug to be fixed. > (Jinrui): Actually, we were not discussing how to do code control. But since > you brought up the issue of code quality, do you think the current code is of > sufficient quality to be merged? Or did you notice the issue when reviewing > the code? Of course, I understand that we don't have a quantifiable standard > to judge whether code is mergeable or not, and everyone has their own > criteria for making that judgment. Regarding your question about cancelling a > release if a bug is found a few days after it was released, I think it > depends on the severity of the bug and the impact it has on users. If the bug > is minor and does not affect the core functionality of the software, it may > be acceptable to wait for the bug to be fixed in the next release. However, > if the bug is severe and causes major issues for users, it may be necessary > to cancel the release and fix the bug immediately. > > As for the fact that it hasn’t been fixed for two days, this function is > being discussed whether it should be discarded or not. Does it still take > time to fix bugs? > > (Jinrui): I didn't fully understand what you meant, could you please explain > it again? > > Thanks, > Zhang Jinrui > > 2023年4月12日 下午1:35，Chao Wang 写道： > > Hi all, > > > It seems that Houliang didn't make it very clear before. Let me add some > more information. > > > If you think this code is doing multi tenant things now, why do we need to > change the name to some other words like resource control ? Is it > just to > prevent users from misunderstandings from the definition? If that's the case, > does it mean that users perceive multi tenancy as different from what we do? > This is contradictory. > > > Why change multi-tenancy to resource control is just because everyone’s > perception of multi-tenancy is not very unified. It may be more unified to > change it to resource control. This should not be contradictory. > > > Suppose, under the advance statement in pr, the following description assumes > that multi-tenancy = resource control, the two words can be interchanged. Are > there any objections? > > > It has been two days since this code was merged, and I don't know if anyone > is fixing the issue I mentioned. Bug is definitely accepted, but I don't > think this issue belongs to a 'bug' because it f
Re: [discuss] consider revert the feature of multi-tenancy
Hi, Perhaps I need to emphasize again that regarding the multi-tenancy section discussed, the following is my conclusion: 1. The implementation of the PR cannot be called multi-tenancy 2. Multi-tenancy is not equal to resource control. The reasons are: 1. While resource isolation or control can be used to enable multi-tenancy, it's not the only requirement. 2. A true multi-tenant system should also have features such as per-tenant configurations, customized tenant roles and permissions, and clear separation of tenant data. 3. In our case, the lack of configuration file isolation in the current implementation means that different tenants may inadvertently affect each other's configurations, which goes against the core principle of multi-tenancy. The example I raised in last mail is also used to illustrate it rather than the function scope definition. > @Chao: You think this pr function is missing, and I can understand it, after > all, you have found some bad cases. So next time if there are other PRs and I > find out the bad case, is it better to consider launching a discussion and > reverting it? (Jinrui): You have raised a good point. In some cases, reverting the code might be the best option to prevent further damage. So, yes, please feel free to start a discussion if you find any issues in the future. I appreciate your understanding and willingness to consider discussions and reverts if any bad cases are found in future PRs. It is definitely welcomed. It’s important for us to maintain a high standard of code quality and ensure that our users can rely on our product. Let's continue to work together to achieve this goal. Thanks, Zhang Jinrui > 2023年4月12日 下午6:13，Chao Wang 写道： > > Hi， > > >> Especially when exposing these concepts to users, we don't want to create >> any misunderstandings about the core functionality of IoTDB, which is also >> mentioned in Xiangdong's mail. That's why we need to be precise in our >> definitions and avoid interchangeable usage of terms that could lead to >> confusion. > > > I agree that the term multi-tenancy is somewhat imprecise in a sense and can > be modified to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. But just like the > multi-tenant form you defined, what will be affected? Based on resource > isolation technology or resource control technology, what's wrong with > providing services to multiple tenants and declaring that this is a > multi-tenant function (possibly weak)? > > > I think it is good for everyone to discuss the definition clearly. Before the > definition is clear, there is no need to question a bunch of questions first. > > >> However, based on my personal judgment and the current state of the code, I >> don't believe it's ready to be merged yet due to its significant missing >> functionality. > > > I have tested the code and the steps below are working. I think the basic > functions are done. > > > set space quota timeseries=3 on root.test > create timeseries root.test.wf01.wt01.status with > datatype=BOOLEAN,encoding=PLAIN > create timeseries root.test.wf01.wt01.status1 with > datatype=BOOLEAN,encoding=PLAIN > create timeseries root.test.wf01.wt01.status2 with > datatype=BOOLEAN,encoding=PLAIN > create timeseries root.test.wf01.wt01.status4 with > datatype=BOOLEAN,encoding=PLAIN > > > The fourth statement will report an error. > > > > > You think this pr function is missing, and I can understand it, after all, > you have found some bad cases. So next time if there are other PRs and I find > out the bad case, is it better to consider launching a discussion and > reverting it? > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Chao Wang > BONC ltd > On 4/12/2023 17:28，Jinrui 张金瑞<329920...@qq.com.INVALID> wrote： > Hi, > > @Chao: Well, there is a difference between multi-tenancy and resource control > as you define. Sometimes in communication, a certain application form is > often used to refer to the core technology or representative technology, or > the core technology represents a certain application form. I think it is not > accurate, but it is acceptable. Just like when I say cloud native, I will > naturally think of k8s, and when it comes to containers, I will think of > docker. I think the core technology of multi-tenancy is resource control or > isolation, so it is also possible to mention multi-tenancy. Functions similar > to multi-tenancy can be realized based on the resource control function. > (Jinrui): I understand your point of view, but I still believe that there is > a difference between multi-tenancy and resource control. While it may be &
