-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
add multitenant support for search workloads #13713
add multitenant support for search workloads #13713
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
…odes Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Kaushal Kumar <[email protected]>
❌ Gradle check result for 675a105: FAILURE Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change? |
❌ Gradle check result for c8f262b: FAILURE Please examine the workflow log, locate, and copy-paste the failure(s) below, then iterate to green. Is the failure a flaky test unrelated to your change? |
Hey, If the Gradle check fails with error |
String tenant = NOT_PROVIDED; | ||
if (request.source() != null && request.source().multiTenantLabels() != null) { | ||
tenant = (String) request.source().multiTenantLabels().get(MultiTenantLabel.TENANT.name()); | ||
} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[NIT] Can be done inline like below:
String tenant = Optional.ofNullable(request.source())
.map(source -> source.multiTenantLabels())
.map(tenantLabels -> tenantLabels.get(MultiTenantLabel.TENANT.name())
.orElse(NOT_PROVIDED);
@@ -568,6 +569,7 @@ public void executeQueryPhase( | |||
assert request.canReturnNullResponseIfMatchNoDocs() == false || request.numberOfShards() > 1 | |||
: "empty responses require more than one shard"; | |||
final IndexShard shard = getShard(request); | |||
setTenantInTask(task, request); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should we not also instrument this tenant logic in task for other phases like fetch etc?
If yes, we should ideally populate this tenant info from coordinator level itself so that all tasks automatically have this info?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We do populate the tenancy info at the coordinator level but it would not suffice because of following reasons
- Shard level tasks are created at the data node when we receive the request.
TaskManager
creates the task using aTaskAwareRequest
. https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch/blob/main/server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/transport/RequestHandlerRegistry.java#L91 - For some use cases We might want to perform the tagging at shard level. Specially if the index is a tenant.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay. But should we also instrument this tenant logic for other phases as well like fetch etc?
@@ -1104,6 +1106,15 @@ private void executeSearch( | |||
concreteLocalIndices, | |||
localShardIterators.size() + remoteShardIterators.size() | |||
); | |||
|
|||
// Set tenant for this request in the task for tracking the tasks across tenants | |||
String tenant = NOT_PROVIDED; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Considering this logic can also be extended to other places like indexing etc, defining this here doesn't make sense.
Either
- Define a global string/enum for this in tenant related class
OR - Leave it tenant name as null, make it Optional and handle it accordingly?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! good catch. I have defined a global string just forgot to use that here.
@@ -297,6 +300,10 @@ public SearchSourceBuilder(StreamInput in) throws IOException { | |||
derivedFields = in.readList(DerivedField::new); | |||
} | |||
} | |||
|
|||
if (in.getVersion().onOrAfter(Version.V_2_14_0)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You will need to define this to Version.V_3_0_0 initially in main branch, after backporting to 2.x, you will then need to change it to Version.V_2_14_0
@@ -223,6 +225,7 @@ public static HighlightBuilder highlight() { | |||
private PointInTimeBuilder pointInTimeBuilder = null; | |||
|
|||
private Map<String, Object> searchPipelineSource = null; | |||
private Map<String, Object> multiTenantLabels = new HashMap<>(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why not just define it to Map<String, String>
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Keeping it generic if want to provide some complex objects as part of tenancy definition.
/** | ||
* Tasks which should be grouped | ||
*/ | ||
public interface ResourceLimitGroupTask { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we are essentially grouping by "tenants"
which internally have resource limits. So this naming doesn't look right to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The naming part we are still discussing.
This PR is stalled because it has been open for 30 days with no activity. |
Closing this PR in favor of implementing labeling in a more generic way. This is one of multiple PRs to achieve that: #14388 We are planning to propagate this information through |
Description
This PR add support to add labels to support multitenancy in opensearch. These labels can be consumed by any feature e,g; Query Sandboxing, Query Insights, Slow logs etc;
Sample search request body to pass these labels
Related Issues
#12342
Check List
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.
For more information on following Developer Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check here.