cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From indika kumara <indika.k...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Multi-tenancy, and authentication and authorization
Date Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:53:11 GMT
Thanks David.... We decided to do it at our client-side as the initial
implementation. I will investigate the approaches for supporting the fine
grained control of the resources consumed by a sever, tenant, and CF.

Thanks,

Indika

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 3:20 PM, David Boxenhorn <david@lookin2.com> wrote:

> As far as I can tell, if Cassandra supports three levels of configuration
> (server, keyspace, column family) we can support multi-tenancy. It is
> trivial to give each tenant their own keyspace (e.g. just use the tenant's
> id as the keyspace name) and let them go wild. (Any out-of-bounds behavior
> on the CF level will be stopped at the keyspace and server level before
> doing any damage.)
>
> I don't think Cassandra needs to know about end-users. From Cassandra's
> point of view the tenant is the user.
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:00 AM, indika kumara <indika.kuma@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> +1   Are there JIRAs for these requirements? I would like to contribute
>> from my capacity.
>>
>> As per my understanding, to support some muti-tenant models, it is needed
>> to qualified keyspaces' names, Cfs' names, etc. with the tenant namespace
>> (or id). The easiest way to do this would be to modify corresponding
>> constructs transparently. I tought of a stage (optional and configurable)
>> prior to authorization. Is there any better solutions? I appreciate the
>> community's suggestions.
>>
>> Moreover, It is needed to send the tenant NS(id) with the user credentials
>> (A users belongs to this tenant (org.)). For that purpose, I thought of
>> using the user credentials in the AuthenticationRequest. s there any better
>> solution?
>>
>> I would like to have a MT support at the Cassandra level which is optional
>> and configurable.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Indika
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 7:40 PM, David Boxenhorn <david@lookin2.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the way I see it - and it becomes even more necessary for a
>>> multi-tenant configuration - there should be completely separate
>>> configurations for applications and for servers.
>>>
>>> - Application configuration is based on data and usage characteristics of
>>> your application.
>>> - Server configuration is based on the specific hardware limitations of
>>> the server.
>>>
>>> Obviously, server limitations take priority over application
>>> configuration.
>>>
>>> Assuming that each tenant in a multi-tenant environment gets one
>>> keyspace, you would also want to enforce limitations based on keyspace
>>> (which correspond to parameters that the tenant payed for).
>>>
>>> So now we have three levels:
>>>
>>> 1. Server configuration (top priority)
>>> 2. Keyspace configuration (payed-for service - second priority)
>>> 3. Column family configuration (configuration provided by tenant - third
>>> priority)
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:15 PM, indika kumara <indika.kuma@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> As the actual problem is mostly related to the number of CFs in the
>>>> system (may be number of the columns), I still believe that supporting
>>>> exposing the Cassandra ‘as-is’ to a tenant is doable and suitable though
>>>> need some fixes.  That multi-tenancy model allows a tenant to use the
>>>> programming model of the Cassandra ‘as-is’, enabling the seamless migration
>>>> of an application that uses the Cassandra into the cloud. Moreover, In order
>>>> to support different SLA requirements of different tenants, the
>>>> configurability of keyspaces, cfs, etc., per tenant may be critical.
>>>> However, there are trade-offs among usability, memory consumption, and
>>>> performance. I believe that it is important to consider the SLA requirements
>>>> of different tenants when deciding the strategies for controlling resource
>>>> consumption.
>>>>
>>>> I like to the idea of system-wide parameters for controlling resource
>>>> usage. I believe that the tenant-specific parameters are equally important.
>>>> There are resources, and each tenant can claim a portion of them based on
>>>> SLA. For instance, if there is a threshold on the number of columns per a
>>>> node, it should be able to decide how many columns a particular tenant can
>>>> have.  It allows selecting a suitable Cassandra cluster for a tenant based
>>>> on his or her SLA. I believe the capability to configure resource
>>>> controlling parameters per keyspace would be important to support a keyspace
>>>> per tenant model. Furthermore, In order to maximize the resource sharing
>>>> among tenants, a threshold (on a resource) per keyspace should not be a hard
>>>> limit. Rather, it should be oscillated between a hard minimum and a maximum.
>>>> For example, if a particular tenant needs more resources at a given time,
he
>>>> or she should be possible to borrow from the others up to the maximum. The
>>>> threshold is only considered when a tenant is assigned to a cluster - the
>>>> remaining resources of a cluster should be equal or higher than the resource
>>>> limit of the tenant. It may need to spread a single keyspace across multiple
>>>> clusters; especially when there are no enough resources in a single
>>>> cluster.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that it would be better to have a flexibility to change
>>>> seamlessly multi-tenancy implementation models such as the Cassadra ‘as-is’,
>>>> the keyspace per tenant model, a keyspace for all tenants, and so on.  Based
>>>> on what I have learnt, each model requires adding tenant id (name space)
to
>>>> a keyspace’s name or cf’s name or raw key, or column’s name.  Would
it be
>>>> better to have a kind of pluggable handler that can access those resources
>>>> prior to doing the actual operation so that the required changes can be
>>>> done? May be prior to authorization.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Indika
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message