hawq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexander Denissov <adenis...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: hawq Ambari integration
Date Fri, 03 Mar 2017 02:33:45 GMT
Not quite.

For the first phase, there will be no integration between GRANT/REVOKE and
Ranger policies -- once Ranger is turned on, GRANT/REVOKE from psql will no
longer work.

In a later stage, we will likely provide integration HAWQ --> Ranger, such
that when GRANT/REVOKE is issued from psql, an appropriate policy is
created / deleted from Ranger.

I don't think Ranger --> HAWQ integration is planned or is even possible,
as admin action in Ranger UI would need to be somehow detected and
translated to HAWQ grants which are not going to be used anyways as
authorization will be performed in Ranger only.

--
Thanks,
Alex

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Jon Roberts <jroberts@pivotal.io> wrote:

> Have I misunderstood the Ranger integration work?  When a GRANT/REVOKE is
> executed in HAWQ it will be replicated to Ranger and when a GRANT/REVOKE is
> executed in Ranger, it will be replicated to HAWQ.  Right?  If yes, then
> this is the model that I'm suggesting for Ambari.
>
> Jon Roberts
> Principal Engineer | jroberts@pivotal.io | 615-426-8661
>
> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Vineet Goel <vvineet@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Having worked with Ambari and knowing the complexities of this desired
> > integration, I agree with Alex on his comments below. Users need some
> time
> > to get used to exclusive HAWQ CLI or Ambari usage model, and avoid mix
> and
> > match despite the fact that HAWQ CLI and Ambari have their
> > advantages/disadvantages.
> >
> > -Vineet
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:17 PM Alexander Denissov <adenissov@pivotal.io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Ambari is designed as a tool to sit on top of individual service CLI
> > tools
> > > and provide consistent user experience. Ambari can also have wizards
> and
> > > custom actions that go beyond service lifecycle management. It is
> assumed
> > > by Ambari design that once Ambari is used to manage configurations, CLI
> > > tools should not be used, otherwise changes will be out-of-sync or will
> > be
> > > overwritten by Ambari upon service restart.
> > >
> > > Having HAWQ CLI tools communicate back to Ambari is not desirable
> > because:
> > > - knowledge of Ambari REST APIs needs to be built into the tools
> > > - Ambari APIs change outside of service release lifecycle
> > > - complexity in error handling (what do you do if Ambari call failed ?)
> > > - introduction of feedback loop and potential infinite cycle (Ambari
> > calls
> > > the tool, the tool calls Ambari back, etc)
> > >
> > > If customers want to do some extra automation they can decide how to
> tie
> > > tools and Ambari, if they like, but I will say we should not have HAWQ
> > CLI
> > > tools call Ambari.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Alex Denissov
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Alex (Oleksandr) Diachenko <
> > > odiachenko@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sure,
> > > >
> > > > Users can automate configuration changes via Ambari API, which
> provides
> > > > unified access
> > > > to all services in a cluster. It's very likely they need to configure
> > > HAWQ,
> > > > HDFS and YARN
> > > > when working with configuration changes, so with Ambari API it would
> be
> > > > easier to call one API
> > > > rather than using all different CLI's.
> > > >
> > > > Regards, Alex.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Lei Chang <lei_chang@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think there are some use cases we need What Jon proposed.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, users installed hawq via Ambari, but they want to
> > automate
> > > > the
> > > > > configuration changes, it would be convenient to have hawq CLI
> change
> > > the
> > > > > configurations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers
> > > > > Lei
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Alex (Oleksandr) Diachenko <
> > > > > odiachenko@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I see, that makes sense.
> > > > > > But is there any action users cannot do via Ambari?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ranger is also a good example, there we are making assumption,
> > > > > > users either use Ranger or HAWQ's authorization engine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The same logic might be extrapolated to HAWQ/Ambari - users
might
> > use
> > > > > > either Ambari or HAWQ CLI, but not both at the same time.
> > > > > > In that way, we can keep things simple.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards, Alex.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Jon Roberts <jroberts@pivotal.io
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Right.  Just like HAWQ will be operational without Ranger.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have the hawq CLI and will obviously continue to have
it.
> > Some
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > use Ambari while others don't.  So just like with Ranger
> support,
> > > > > > integrate
> > > > > > > when possible but don't require it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Alex (Oleksandr) Diachenko
<
> > > > > > > odiachenko@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not really, because HAWQ should be operational even
without
> > > > Ambari(if
> > > > > > > > that's the case).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Jon Roberts <
> > jroberts@pivotal.io
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If that is the case, should we remove the "hawq"
CLI?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jon
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Alex (Oleksandr)
Diachenko
> <
> > > > > > > > > odiachenko@pivotal.io> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Jon,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think it was designed that Ambari is supposed
to be
> only
> > > one
> > > > > > source
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > true.
> > > > > > > > > > The whole purpose of integration id to provide
a
> > > user-friendly
> > > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > > > > and avoid manually editing/distributing
config files
> > > > > > > > > > or running CLI commands.
> > > > > > > > > > The idea of coupling HAWQ master with Ambari
doesn't seem
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > > > clean.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Regards, Alex.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Jon Roberts
<
> > > > jroberts@pivotal.io
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It would be handy if the "hawq config"
also updated
> > > Ambari's
> > > > > > > database
> > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > that changes could be made in either
place are retained
> > > when
> > > > > > > changes
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > made in either place.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Register Ambari:
> > > > > > > > > > > hawq ambari -u admin -w admin -h myhost
-p 8080
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "hawq config" could then raise INFO/WARN
messages about
> > > > > updating
> > > > > > > > > Ambari.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Example:
> > > > > > > > > > > hawq config -c hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory
-v 16gb
> > > > > > > > > > > INFO: Updated Ambari with hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory=16gb
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > hawq config -c hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory
-v 16gb
> > > > > > > > > > > WARN: Failed to update Ambari with
> > > > > hawq_rm_stmt_vseg_memory=16gb.
> > > > > > > > > Please
> > > > > > > > > > > update Ambari credentials manually
to retain this
> > > > configuration
> > > > > > > > change
> > > > > > > > > > > after a restart.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The implementation would require interacting
with the
> > > Ambari
> > > > > APIs
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > storing the credentials in an encrypted
file on the
> HAWQ
> > > > > Master.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jon Roberts
> > > > > > > > > > > Principal Engineer | jroberts@pivotal.io
|
> 615-426-8661
> > > <(615)%20426-8661>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message