diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/architecture/blueprints/cells')
34 files changed, 705 insertions, 660 deletions
diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-admin-area.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-admin-area.md index 31d5388d40b..a9cd170b2a7 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-admin-area.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-admin-area.md @@ -15,21 +15,16 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Admin Area -In our Cells architecture proposal we plan to share all admin related tables in -GitLab. This allows simpler management of all Cells in one interface and reduces -the risk of settings diverging in different Cells. This introduces challenges -with admin pages that allow you to manage data that will be spread across all -Cells. +In our Cells architecture proposal we plan to share all admin related tables in GitLab. +This allows for simpler management of all Cells in one interface and reduces the risk of settings diverging in different Cells. +This introduces challenges with Admin Area pages that allow you to manage data that will be spread across all Cells. ## 1. Definition -There are consequences for admin pages that contain data that spans "the whole -instance" as the Admin pages may be served by any Cell or possibly just 1 cell. -There are already many parts of the Admin interface that will have data that -spans many cells. For example lists of all Groups, Projects, Topics, Jobs, -Analytics, Applications and more. There are also administrative monitoring -capabilities in the Admin page that will span many cells such as the "Background -Jobs" and "Background Migrations" pages. +There are consequences for Admin Area pages that contain data that span "the whole instance" as the Admin Area pages may be served by any Cell or possibly just one Cell. +There are already many parts of the Admin Area that will have data that span many Cells. +For example lists of all Groups, Projects, Topics, Jobs, Analytics, Applications and more. +There are also administrative monitoring capabilities in the Admin Area that will span many Cells such as the "Background Jobs" and "Background Migrations" pages. ## 2. Data flow @@ -38,20 +33,47 @@ Jobs" and "Background Migrations" pages. We will need to decide how to handle these exceptions with a few possible options: -1. Move all these pages out into a dedicated per-cell Admin section. Probably +1. Move all these pages out into a dedicated per-Cell admin section. Probably the URL will need to be routable to a single Cell like `/cells/<cell_id>/admin`, - then we can display this data per Cell. These pages will be distinct from - other Admin pages which control settings that are shared across all Cells. We + then we can display these data per Cell. These pages will be distinct from + other Admin Area pages which control settings that are shared across all Cells. We will also need to consider how this impacts self-managed customers and - whether, or not, this should be visible for single-cell instances of GitLab. + whether, or not, this should be visible for single-Cell instances of GitLab. 1. Build some aggregation interfaces for this data so that it can be fetched from all Cells and presented in a single UI. This may be beneficial to an administrator that needs to see and filter all data at a glance, especially when they don't know which Cell the data is on. The downside, however, is - that building this kind of aggregation is very tricky when all the Cells are - designed to be totally independent, and it does also enforce more strict + that building this kind of aggregation is very tricky when all Cells are + designed to be totally independent, and it does also enforce stricter requirements on compatibility between Cells. +The following overview describes at what level each feature contained in the current Admin Area will be managed: + +| Feature | Cluster | Cell | Organization | +| --- | --- | --- | --- | +| Abuse reports | | | | +| Analytics | | | | +| Applications | | | | +| Deploy keys | | | | +| Labels | | | | +| Messages | ✓ | | | +| Monitoring | | ✓ | | +| Subscription | | | | +| System hooks | | | | +| Overview | | | | +| Settings - General | ✓ | | | +| Settings - Integrations | ✓ | | | +| Settings - Repository | ✓ | | | +| Settings - CI/CD (1) | ✓ | ✓ | | +| Settings - Reporting | ✓ | | | +| Settings - Metrics | ✓ | | | +| Settings - Service usage data | | ✓ | | +| Settings - Network | ✓ | | | +| Settings - Appearance | ✓ | | | +| Settings - Preferences | ✓ | | | + +(1) Depending on the specific setting, some will be managed at the cluster-level, and some at the Cell-level. + ## 4. Evaluation ## 4.1. Pros diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-backups.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-backups.md index b5d5d7afdcf..3d20d6e2caa 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-backups.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-backups.md @@ -15,47 +15,38 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Backups -Each cells will take its own backups, and consequently have its own isolated -backup / restore procedure. +Each Cell will take its own backups, and consequently have its own isolated backup/restore procedure. ## 1. Definition -GitLab Backup takes a backup of the PostgreSQL database used by the application, -and also Git repository data. +GitLab backup takes a backup of the PostgreSQL database used by the application, and also Git repository data. ## 2. Data flow -Each cell has a number of application databases to back up (for example, `main`, and `ci`). - -Additionally, there may be cluster-wide metadata tables (for example, `users` table) -which is directly accessible via PostgreSQL. +Each Cell has a number of application databases to back up (for example, `main`, and `ci`). +Additionally, there may be cluster-wide metadata tables (for example, `users` table) which is directly accessible via PostgreSQL. ## 3. Proposal ### 3.1. Cluster-wide metadata -It is currently unknown how cluster-wide metadata tables will be accessible. We -may choose to have cluster-wide metadata tables backed up separately, or have -each cell back up its copy of cluster-wide metdata tables. +It is currently unknown how cluster-wide metadata tables will be accessible. +We may choose to have cluster-wide metadata tables backed up separately, or have each Cell back up its copy of cluster-wide metadata tables. ### 3.2 Consistency #### 3.2.1 Take backups independently -As each cell will communicate with each other via API, and there will be no joins -to the users table, it should be acceptable for each cell to take a backup -independently of each other. +As each Cell will communicate with each other via API, and there will be no joins to the `users` table, it should be acceptable for each Cell to take a backup independently of each other. #### 3.2.2 Enforce snapshots -We can require that each cell take a snapshot for the PostgreSQL databases at -around the same time to allow for a consistent-enough backup. +We can require that each Cell take a snapshot for the PostgreSQL databases at around the same time to allow for a consistent enough backup. ## 4. Evaluation -As the number of cells increases, it will likely not be feasible to take a -snapshot at the same time for all cells. Hence taking backups independently is -the better option. +As the number of Cells increases, it will likely not be feasible to take a snapshot at the same time for all Cells. +Hence taking backups independently is the better option. ## 4.1. Pros diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-ci-runners.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-ci-runners.md index 8a6790ae49f..4e7cea5bfd5 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-ci-runners.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-ci-runners.md @@ -15,156 +15,129 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: CI Runners -GitLab in order to execute CI jobs [GitLab Runner](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner/), -very often managed by customer in their infrastructure. - -All CI jobs created as part of CI pipeline are run in a context of project -it poses a challenge how to manage GitLab Runners. +GitLab executes CI jobs via [GitLab Runner](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-runner/), very often managed by customers in their infrastructure. +All CI jobs created as part of the CI pipeline are run in the context of a Project. +This poses a challenge how to manage GitLab Runners. ## 1. Definition There are 3 different types of runners: -- instance-wide: runners that are registered globally with specific tags (selection criteria) -- group runners: runners that execute jobs from a given top-level group or subprojects of that group -- project runners: runners that execute jobs from projects or many projects: some runners might - have projects assigned from projects in different top-level groups. +- Instance-wide: Runners that are registered globally with specific tags (selection criteria) +- Group runners: Runners that execute jobs from a given top-level Group or Projects in that Group +- Project runners: Runners that execute jobs from one Projects or many Projects: some runners might + have Projects assigned from Projects in different top-level Groups. -This alongside with existing data structure where `ci_runners` is a table describing -all types of runners poses a challenge how the `ci_runners` should be managed in a Cells environment. +This, alongside with the existing data structure where `ci_runners` is a table describing all types of runners, poses a challenge as to how the `ci_runners` should be managed in a Cells environment. ## 2. Data flow -GitLab Runners use a set of globally scoped endpoints to: +GitLab runners use a set of globally scoped endpoints to: -- registration of a new runner via registration token `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/runners` +- Register a new runner via registration token `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/runners` ([subject for removal](../runner_tokens/index.md)) (`registration token`) -- creation of a new runner in the context of a user `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/user/runners` (`runner token`) -- requests jobs via an authenticated `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/jobs/request` endpoint (`runner token`) -- upload job status via `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/jobs/:job_id` (`build token`) -- upload trace via `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/jobs/:job_id/trace` (`build token`) -- download and upload artifacts via `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/jobs/:job_id/artifacts` (`build token`) +- Create a new runner in the context of a user `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/user/runners` (`runner token`) +- Request jobs via an authenticated `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/jobs/request` endpoint (`runner token`) +- Upload job status via `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/jobs/:job_id` (`build token`) +- Upload trace via `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/jobs/:job_id/trace` (`build token`) +- Download and upload artifacts via `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/jobs/:job_id/artifacts` (`build token`) Currently three types of authentication tokens are used: -- runner registration token ([subject for removal](../runner_tokens/index.md)) -- runner token representing an registered runner in a system with specific configuration (`tags`, `locked`, etc.) -- build token representing an ephemeral token giving a limited access to updating a specific - job, uploading artifacts, downloading dependent artifacts, downloading and uploading - container registry images +- Runner registration token ([subject for removal](../runner_tokens/index.md)) +- Runner token representing a registered runner in a system with specific configuration (`tags`, `locked`, etc.) +- Build token representing an ephemeral token giving limited access to updating a specific job, uploading artifacts, downloading dependent artifacts, downloading and uploading container registry images -Each of those endpoints do receive an authentication token via header (`JOB-TOKEN` for `/trace`) -or body parameter (`token` all other endpoints). +Each of those endpoints receive an authentication token via header (`JOB-TOKEN` for `/trace`) or body parameter (`token` all other endpoints). -Since the CI pipeline would be created in a context of a specific Cell it would be required -that pick of a build would have to be processed by that particular Cell. This requires -that build picking depending on a solution would have to be either: +Since the CI pipeline would be created in the context of a specific Cell, it would be required that pick of a build would have to be processed by that particular Cell. +This requires that build picking depending on a solution would have to be either: -- routed to correct Cell for a first time -- be made to be two phase: request build from global pool, claim build on a specific Cell using a Cell specific URL +- Routed to the correct Cell for the first time +- Be two-phased: Request build from global pool, claim build on a specific Cell using a Cell specific URL ## 3. Proposal -This section describes various proposals. Reader should consider that those -proposals do describe solutions for different problems. Many or some aspects -of those proposals might be the solution to the stated problem. - ### 3.1. Authentication tokens -Even though the paths for CI Runners are not routable they can be made routable with -those two possible solutions: +Even though the paths for CI runners are not routable, they can be made routable with these two possible solutions: - The `https://gitlab.com/api/v4/jobs/request` uses a long polling mechanism with - a ticketing mechanism (based on `X-GitLab-Last-Update` header). Runner when first - starts sends a request to GitLab to which GitLab responds with either a build to pick + a ticketing mechanism (based on `X-GitLab-Last-Update` header). When the runner first + starts, it sends a request to GitLab to which GitLab responds with either a build to pick by runner. This value is completely controlled by GitLab. This allows GitLab - to use JWT or any other means to encode `cell` identifier that could be easily + to use JWT or any other means to encode a `cell` identifier that could be easily decodable by Router. -- The majority of communication (in terms of volume) is using `build token` making it - the easiest target to change since GitLab is sole owner of the token that Runner later - uses for specific job. There were prior discussions about not storing `build token` - but rather using `JWT` token with defined scopes. Such token could encode the `cell` - to which router could easily route all requests. +- The majority of communication (in terms of volume) is using `build token`, making it + the easiest target to change since GitLab is the sole owner of the token that the runner later + uses for a specific job. There were prior discussions about not storing the `build token` + but rather using a `JWT` token with defined scopes. Such a token could encode the `cell` + to which the Router could route all requests. ### 3.2. Request body -- The most of used endpoints pass authentication token in request body. It might be desired - to use HTTP Headers as an easier way to access this information by Router without +- The most used endpoints pass the authentication token in the request body. It might be desired + to use HTTP headers as an easier way to access this information by Router without a need to proxy requests. -### 3.3. Instance-wide are Cell local +### 3.3. Instance-wide are Cell-local We can pick a design where all runners are always registered and local to a given Cell: -- Each Cell has it's own set of instance-wide runners that are updated at it's own pace -- The project runners can only be linked to projects from the same organization - creating strong isolation. +- Each Cell has its own set of instance-wide runners that are updated at its own pace +- The Project runners can only be linked to Projects from the same Organization, creating strong isolation. - In this model the `ci_runners` table is local to the Cell. -- In this model we would require the above endpoints to be scoped to a Cell in some way - or made routable. It might be via prefixing them, adding additional Cell parameter, - or providing much more robust way to decode runner token and match it to Cell. -- If routable token is used, we could move away from cryptographic random stored in - database to rather prefer to use JWT tokens that would encode -- The Admin Area showing registered Runners would have to be scoped to a Cell - -This model might be desired since it provides strong isolation guarantees. -This model does significantly increase maintenance overhead since each Cell is managed -separately. +- In this model we would require the above endpoints to be scoped to a Cell in some way, or be made routable. It might be via prefixing them, adding additional Cell parameters, or providing much more robust ways to decode runner tokens and match it to a Cell. +- If a routable token is used, we could move away from cryptographic random stored in database to rather prefer to use JWT tokens. +- The Admin Area showing registered runners would have to be scoped to a Cell. -This model may require adjustments to runner tags feature so that projects have consistent runner experience across cells. +This model might be desired because it provides strong isolation guarantees. +This model does significantly increase maintenance overhead because each Cell is managed separately. +This model may require adjustments to the runner tags feature so that Projects have a consistent runner experience across Cells. ### 3.4. Instance-wide are cluster-wide -Contrary to proposal where all runners are Cell local, we can consider that runners +Contrary to the proposal where all runners are Cell-local, we can consider that runners are global, or just instance-wide runners are global. -However, this requires significant overhaul of system and to change the following aspects: +However, this requires significant overhaul of the system and we would have to change the following aspects: -- `ci_runners` table would likely have to be split decomposed into `ci_instance_runners`, ... -- all interfaces would have to be adopted to use correct table -- build queuing would have to be reworked to be two phase where each Cell would know of all pending - and running builds, but the actual claim of a build would happen against a Cell containing data -- likely `ci_pending_builds` and `ci_running_builds` would have to be made `cluster-wide` tables - increasing likelihood of creating hotspots in a system related to CI queueing +- The `ci_runners` table would likely have to be decomposed into `ci_instance_runners`, ... +- All interfaces would have to be adopted to use the correct table. +- Build queuing would have to be reworked to be two-phased where each Cell would know of all pending and running builds, but the actual claim of a build would happen against a Cell containing data. +- It is likely that `ci_pending_builds` and `ci_running_builds` would have to be made `cluster-wide` tables, increasing the likelihood of creating hotspots in a system related to CI queueing. -This model makes it complex to implement from engineering side. Does make some data being shared -between Cells. Creates hotspots / scalability issues in a system (ex. during abuse) that -might impact experience of organizations on other Cells. +This model is complex to implement from an engineering perspective. +Some data are shared between Cells. +It creates hotspots/scalability issues in a system that might impact the experience of Organizations on other Cells, for instance during abuse. ### 3.5. GitLab CI Daemon -Another potential solution to explore is to have a dedicated service responsible for builds queueing -owning it's database and working in a model of either sharded or celled service. There were prior -discussions about [CI/CD Daemon](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/19435). +Another potential solution to explore is to have a dedicated service responsible for builds queueing, owning its database and working in a model of either sharded or Cell-ed service. +There were prior discussions about [CI/CD Daemon](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/19435). -If the service would be sharded: +If the service is sharded: -- depending on a model if runners are cluster-wide or cell-local this service would have to fetch - data from all Cells -- if the sharded service would be used we could adapt a model of either sharing database containing - `ci_pending_builds/ci_running_builds` with the service -- if the sharded service would be used we could consider a push model where each Cell pushes to CI/CD Daemon - builds that should be picked by Runner -- the sharded service would be aware which Cell is responsible for processing the given build and could - route processing requests to designated Cell +- Depending on the model, if runners are cluster-wide or Cell-local, this service would have to fetch data from all Cells. +- If the sharded service is used we could adapt a model of sharing a database containing `ci_pending_builds/ci_running_builds` with the service. +- If the sharded service is used we could consider a push model where each Cell pushes to CI/CD Daemon builds that should be picked by runner. +- The sharded service would be aware which Cell is responsible for processing the given build and could route processing requests to the designated Cell. -If the service would be celled: +If the service is Cell-ed: -- all expectations of routable endpoints are still valid +- All expectations of routable endpoints are still valid. -In general usage of CI Daemon does not help significantly with the stated problem. However, this offers -a few upsides related to more efficient processing and decoupling model: push model and it opens a way -to offer stateful communication with GitLab Runners (ex. gRPC or Websockets). +In general usage of CI Daemon does not help significantly with the stated problem. +However, this offers a few upsides related to more efficient processing and decoupling model: push model and it opens a way to offer stateful communication with GitLab runners (ex. gRPC or Websockets). ## 4. Evaluation -Considering all solutions it appears that solution giving the most promise is: +Considering all options it appears that the most promising solution is to: -- use "instance-wide are Cell local" -- refine endpoints to have routable identities (either via specific paths, or better tokens) +- Use [Instance-wide are Cell-local](#33-instance-wide-are-cell-local) +- Refine endpoints to have routable identities (either via specific paths, or better tokens) -Other potential upsides is to get rid of `ci_builds.token` and rather use a `JWT token` -that can much better and easier encode wider set of scopes allowed by CI runner. +Another potential upside is to get rid of `ci_builds.token` and rather use a `JWT token` that can much better and easier encode a wider set of scopes allowed by CI runner. ## 4.1. Pros diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-container-registry.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-container-registry.md index a5761808941..25af65a8700 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-container-registry.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-container-registry.md @@ -15,46 +15,37 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Container Registry -GitLab Container Registry is a feature allowing to store Docker Container Images -in GitLab. You can read about GitLab integration [here](../../../user/packages/container_registry/index.md). +GitLab [Container Registry](../../../user/packages/container_registry/index.md) is a feature allowing to store Docker container images in GitLab. ## 1. Definition -GitLab Container Registry is a complex service requiring usage of PostgreSQL, Redis -and Object Storage dependencies. Right now there's undergoing work to introduce -[Container Registry Metadata](../container_registry_metadata_database/index.md) -to optimize data storage and image retention policies of Container Registry. +GitLab Container Registry is a complex service requiring usage of PostgreSQL, Redis and Object Storage dependencies. +Right now there's undergoing work to introduce [Container Registry Metadata](../container_registry_metadata_database/index.md) to optimize data storage and image retention policies of Container Registry. -GitLab Container Registry is serving as a container for stored data, -but on it's own does not authenticate `docker login`. The `docker login` -is executed with user credentials (can be `personal access token`) -or CI build credentials (ephemeral `ci_builds.token`). +GitLab Container Registry is serving as a container for stored data, but on its own does not authenticate `docker login`. +The `docker login` is executed with user credentials (can be `personal access token`) or CI build credentials (ephemeral `ci_builds.token`). -Container Registry uses data deduplication. It means that the same blob -(image layer) that is shared between many projects is stored only once. +Container Registry uses data deduplication. +It means that the same blob (image layer) that is shared between many Projects is stored only once. Each layer is hashed by `sha256`. -The `docker login` does request JWT time-limited authentication token that -is signed by GitLab, but validated by Container Registry service. The JWT -token does store all authorized scopes (`container repository images`) -and operation types (`push` or `pull`). A single JWT authentication token -can be have many authorized scopes. This allows container registry and client -to mount existing blobs from another scopes. GitLab responds only with -authorized scopes. Then it is up to GitLab Container Registry to validate -if the given operation can be performed. +The `docker login` does request a JWT time-limited authentication token that is signed by GitLab, but validated by Container Registry service. +The JWT token does store all authorized scopes (`container repository images`) and operation types (`push` or `pull`). +A single JWT authentication token can have many authorized scopes. +This allows Container Registry and client to mount existing blobs from other scopes. +GitLab responds only with authorized scopes. +Then it is up to GitLab Container Registry to validate if the given operation can be performed. -The GitLab.com pages are always scoped to project. Each project can have many -container registry images attached. +The GitLab.com pages are always scoped to a Project. +Each Project can have many container registry images attached. -Currently in case of GitLab.com the actual registry service is served -via `https://registry.gitlab.com`. +Currently, on GitLab.com the actual registry service is served via `https://registry.gitlab.com`. The main identifiable problems are: -- the authentication request (`https://gitlab.com/jwt/auth`) that is processed by GitLab.com -- the `https://registry.gitlab.com` that is run by external service and uses it's own data store -- the data deduplication, the Cells architecture with registry run in a Cell would reduce - efficiency of data storage +- The authentication request (`https://gitlab.com/jwt/auth`) that is processed by GitLab.com. +- The `https://registry.gitlab.com` that is run by an external service and uses its own data store. +- Data deduplication. The Cells architecture with registry run in a Cell would reduce efficiency of data storage. ## 2. Data flow @@ -99,33 +90,24 @@ curl \ ### 3.1. Shard Container Registry separately to Cells architecture -Due to it's architecture it extensive architecture and in general highly scalable -horizontal architecture it should be evaluated if the GitLab Container Registry -should be run not in Cell, but in a Cluster and be scaled independently. - +Due to its extensive and in general highly scalable horizontal architecture it should be evaluated if the GitLab Container Registry should be run not in Cell, but in a Cluster and be scaled independently. This might be easier, but would definitely not offer the same amount of data isolation. ### 3.2. Run Container Registry within a Cell -It appears that except `/jwt/auth` which would likely have to be processed by Router -(to decode `scope`) the container registry could be run as a local service of a Cell. - -The actual data at least in case of GitLab.com is not forwarded via registry, -but rather served directly from Object Storage / CDN. +It appears that except `/jwt/auth` which would likely have to be processed by Router (to decode `scope`) the Container Registry could be run as a local service of a Cell. +The actual data at least in case of GitLab.com is not forwarded via registry, but rather served directly from Object Storage / CDN. Its design encodes container repository image in a URL that is easily routable. -It appears that we could re-use the same stateless Router service in front of Container Registry -to serve manifests and blobs redirect. +It appears that we could re-use the same stateless Router service in front of Container Registry to serve manifests and blobs redirect. -The only downside is increased complexity of managing standalone registry for each Cell, -but this might be desired approach. +The only downside is increased complexity of managing standalone registry for each Cell, but this might be desired approach. ## 4. Evaluation -There do not seem any theoretical problems with running GitLab Container Registry in a Cell. -Service seems that can be easily made routable to work well. - -The practical complexities are around managing complex service from infrastructure side. +There do not seem to be any theoretical problems with running GitLab Container Registry in a Cell. +It seems that the service can be easily made routable to work well. +The practical complexities are around managing a complex service from an infrastructure side. ## 4.1. Pros diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-contributions-forks.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-contributions-forks.md index 8a67383c5e4..8e144386908 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-contributions-forks.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-contributions-forks.md @@ -15,37 +15,33 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Contributions: Forks -[Forking workflow](../../../user/project/repository/forking_workflow.md) allows users -to copy existing project sources into their own namespace of choice (personal or group). +The [Forking workflow](../../../user/project/repository/forking_workflow.md) allows users to copy existing Project sources into their own namespace of choice (Personal or Group). ## 1. Definition -[Forking workflow](../../../user/project/repository/forking_workflow.md) is common workflow -with various usage patterns: +The [Forking workflow](../../../user/project/repository/forking_workflow.md) is a common workflow with various usage patterns: -- allows users to contribute back to upstream project -- persist repositories into their personal namespace -- copy to make changes and release as modified project +- It allows users to contribute back to upstream Project. +- It persists repositories into their Personal Namespace. +- Users can copy to make changes and release as modified Project. -Forks allow users not having write access to parent project to make changes. The forking workflow -is especially important for the Open Source community which is able to contribute back -to public projects. However, it is equally important in some companies which prefer the strong split -of responsibilities and tighter access control. The access to project is restricted -to designated list of developers. +Forks allow users not having write access to a parent Project to make changes. +The forking workflow is especially important for the open source community to contribute back to public Projects. +However, it is equally important in some companies that prefer a strong split of responsibilities and tighter access control. +The access to a Project is restricted to a designated list of developers. Forks enable: -- tighter control of who can modify the upstream project -- split of the responsibilities: parent project might use CI configuration connecting to production systems -- run CI pipelines in context of fork in much more restrictive environment -- consider all forks to be unveted which reduces risks of leaking secrets, or any other information - tied with the project +- Tighter control of who can modify the upstream Project. +- Split of responsibilities: Parent Project might use CI configuration connecting to production systems. +- To run CI pipelines in the context of a fork in a much more restrictive environment. +- To consider all forks to be unvetted which reduces risks of leaking secrets, or any other information tied to the Project. -The forking model is problematic in Cells architecture for following reasons: +The forking model is problematic in a Cells architecture for the following reasons: -- Forks are clones of existing repositories, forks could be created across different organizations, Cells and Gitaly shards. -- User can create merge request and contribute back to upstream project, this upstream project might in a different organization and Cell. -- The merge request CI pipeline is to executed in a context of source project, but presented in a context of target project. +- Forks are clones of existing repositories. Forks could be created across different Organizations, Cells and Gitaly shards. +- Users can create merge requests and contribute back to an upstream Project. This upstream Project might in a different Organization and Cell. +- The merge request CI pipeline is executed in the context of the source Project, but presented in the context of the target Project. ## 2. Data flow @@ -53,66 +49,55 @@ The forking model is problematic in Cells architecture for following reasons: ### 3.1. Intra-Cluster forks -This proposal makes us to implement forks as a intra-ClusterCell forks where communication is done via API -between all trusted Cells of a cluster: - -- Forks when created, they are created always in context of user choice of group. -- Forks are isolated from Organization. -- Organization or group owner could disable forking across organizations or forking in general. -- When a Merge Request is created it is created in context of target project, referencing - external project on another Cell. -- To target project the merge reference is transfered that is used for presenting information - in context of target project. -- CI pipeline is fetched in context of source project as it-is today, the result is fetched into - Merge Request of target project. -- The Cell holding target project internally uses GraphQL to fetch status of source project - and include in context of the information for merge request. +This proposal implements forks as intra-Cluster forks where communication is done via API between all trusted Cells of a cluster: + +- Forks are created always in the context of a user's choice of Group. +- Forks are isolated from the Organization. +- Organization or Group owner could disable forking across Organizations, or forking in general. +- A merge request is created in the context of the target Project, referencing the external Project on another Cell. +- To target Project the merge reference is transferred that is used for presenting information in context of the target Project. +- CI pipeline is fetched in the context of the source Project as it is today, the result is fetched into the merge request of the target Project. +- The Cell holding the target Project internally uses GraphQL to fetch the status of the source Project and includes in context of the information for merge request. Upsides: -- All existing forks continue to work as-is, as they are treated as intra-Cluster forks. +- All existing forks continue to work as they are, as they are treated as intra-Cluster forks. Downsides: -- The purpose of Organizations is to provide strong isolation between organizations - allowing to fork across does break security boundaries. -- However, this is no different to ability of users today to clone repository to local computer - and push it to any repository of choice. -- Access control of source project can be lower than those of target project. System today - requires that in order to contribute back the access level needs to be the same for fork and upstream. - -### 3.2. Forks are created in a personal namespace of the current organization - -Instead of creating projects across organizations, the forks are created in a user personal namespace -tied with the organization. Example: - -- Each user that is part of organization receives their personal namespace. For example for `GitLab Inc.` - it could be `gitlab.com/organization/gitlab-inc/@ayufan`. -- The user has to fork into it's own personal namespace of the organization. -- The user has that many personal namespaces as many organizations it belongs to. -- The personal namespace behaves similar to currently offered personal namespace. -- The user can manage and create projects within a personal namespace. -- The organization can prevent or disable usage of personal namespaces disallowing forks. -- All current forks are migrated into personal namespace of user in Organization. -- All forks are part of to the organization. -- The forks are not federated features. -- The personal namespace and forked project do not share configuration with parent project. - -### 3.3. Forks are created as internal projects under current project - -Instead of creating projects across organizations, the forks are attachments to existing projects. -Each user forking a project receives their unique project. Example: - -- For project: `gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab`, forks would be created in `gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/@kamil-gitlab`. -- Forks are created in a context of current organization, they do not cross organization boundaries - and are managed by the organization. +- The purpose of Organizations is to provide strong isolation between Organizations. Allowing to fork across does break security boundaries. +- However, this is no different to the ability of users today to clone a repository to a local computer and push it to any repository of choice. +- Access control of source Project can be lower than those of target Project. Today, the system requires that in order to contribute back, the access level needs to be the same for fork and upstream. + +### 3.2. Forks are created in a Personal Namespace of the current Organization + +Instead of creating Projects across Organizations, forks are created in a user's Personal Namespace tied to the Organization. Example: + +- Each user that is part of an Organization receives their Personal Namespace. For example for `GitLab Inc.` it could be `gitlab.com/organization/gitlab-inc/@ayufan`. +- The user has to fork into their own Personal Namespace of the Organization. +- The user has as many Personal Namespaces as Organizations they belongs to. +- The Personal Namespace behaves similar to the currently offered Personal Namespace. +- The user can manage and create Projects within a Personal Namespace. +- The Organization can prevent or disable usage of Personal Namespaces, disallowing forks. +- All current forks are migrated into the Personal Namespace of user in an Organization. +- All forks are part of the Organization. +- Forks are not federated features. +- The Personal Namespace and forked Project do not share configuration with the parent Project. + +### 3.3. Forks are created as internal Projects under current Projects + +Instead of creating Projects across Organizations, forks are attachments to existing Projects. +Each user forking a Project receives their unique Project. Example: + +- For Project: `gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab`, forks would be created in `gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/@kamil-gitlab`. +- Forks are created in the context of the current Organization, they do not cross Organization boundaries and are managed by the Organization. - Tied to the user (or any other user-provided name of the fork). -- The forks are not federated features. +- Forks are not federated features. Downsides: -- Does not answer how to handle and migrate all exisiting forks. -- Might share current group / project settings - breaking some security boundaries. +- Does not answer how to handle and migrate all existing forks. +- Might share current Group/Project settings, which could be breaking some security boundaries. ## 4. Evaluation diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-data-migration.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-data-migration.md index ef0865b4081..9ff661ddf68 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-data-migration.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-data-migration.md @@ -6,15 +6,6 @@ description: 'Cells: Data migration' <!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> -DISCLAIMER: -This page may contain information related to upcoming products, features and -functionality. It is important to note that the information presented is for -informational purposes only, so please do not rely on the information for -purchasing or planning purposes. Just like with all projects, the items -mentioned on the page are subject to change or delay, and the development, -release, and timing of any products, features, or functionality remain at the -sole discretion of GitLab Inc. - This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add them in the future. This is one possible architecture for Cells, and we intend to @@ -24,26 +15,18 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Data migration -It is essential for Cells architecture to provide a way to migrate data out of big Cells -into smaller ones. This describes various approaches to provide this type of split. - -We also need to handle for cases where data is already violating the expected -isolation constraints of Cells (ie. references cannot span multiple -organizations). We know that existing features like linked issues allowed users -to link issues across any projects regardless of their hierarchy. There are many -similar features. All of this data will need to be migrated in some way before -it can be split across different cells. This may mean some data needs to be -deleted, or the feature changed and modelled slightly differently before we can -properly split or migrate the organizations between cells. - -Having schema deviations across different Cells, which is a necessary -consequence of different databases, will also impact our ability to migrate -data between cells. Different schemas impact our ability to reliably replicate -data across cells and especially impact our ability to validate that the data is -correctly replicated. It might force us to only be able to move data between -cells when the schemas are all in sync (slowing down deployments and the -rebalancing process) or possibly only migrate from newer to older schemas which -would be complex. +It is essential for a Cells architecture to provide a way to migrate data out of big Cells into smaller ones. +This document describes various approaches to provide this type of split. + +We also need to handle cases where data is already violating the expected isolation constraints of Cells, for example references cannot span multiple Organizations. +We know that existing features like linked issues allowed users to link issues across any Projects regardless of their hierarchy. +There are many similar features. +All of this data will need to be migrated in some way before it can be split across different Cells. +This may mean some data needs to be deleted, or the feature needs to be changed and modelled slightly differently before we can properly split or migrate Organizations between Cells. + +Having schema deviations across different Cells, which is a necessary consequence of different databases, will also impact our ability to migrate data between Cells. +Different schemas impact our ability to reliably replicate data across Cells and especially impact our ability to validate that the data is correctly replicated. +It might force us to only be able to move data between Cells when the schemas are all in sync (slowing down deployments and the rebalancing process) or possibly only migrate from newer to older schemas which would be complex. ## 1. Definition @@ -53,34 +36,27 @@ would be complex. ### 3.1. Split large Cells -A single Cell can only be divided into many Cells. This is based on principle -that it is easier to create exact clone of an existing Cell in many replicas -out of which some will be made authoritative once migrated. Keeping those -replicas up-to date with Cell 0 is also much easier due to pre-existing -replication solutions that can replicate the whole systems: Geo, PostgreSQL -physical replication, etc. +A single Cell can only be divided into many Cells. +This is based on the principle that it is easier to create an exact clone of an existing Cell in many replicas out of which some will be made authoritative once migrated. +Keeping those replicas up-to-date with Cell 0 is also much easier due to pre-existing replication solutions that can replicate the whole systems: Geo, PostgreSQL physical replication, etc. -1. All data of an organization needs to not be divided across many Cells. +1. All data of an Organization needs to not be divided across many Cells. 1. Split should be doable online. 1. New Cells cannot contain pre-existing data. 1. N Cells contain exact replica of Cell 0. 1. The data of Cell 0 is live replicated to as many Cells it needs to be split. -1. Once consensus is achieved between Cell 0 and N-Cells the organizations to be migrated away - are marked as read-only cluster-wide. -1. The `routes` is updated on for all organizations to be split to indicate an authoritative - Cell holding the most recent data, like `gitlab-org` on `cell-100`. -1. The data for `gitlab-org` on Cell 0, and on other non-authoritative N-Cells are dormant - and will be removed in the future. -1. All accesses to `gitlab-org` on a given Cell are validated about `cell_id` of `routes` - to ensure that given Cell is authoritative to handle the data. +1. Once consensus is achieved between Cell 0 and N-Cells, the Organizations to be migrated away are marked as read-only cluster-wide. +1. The `routes` is updated on for all Organizations to be split to indicate an authoritative Cell holding the most recent data, like `gitlab-org` on `cell-100`. +1. The data for `gitlab-org` on Cell 0, and on other non-authoritative N-Cells are dormant and will be removed in the future. +1. All accesses to `gitlab-org` on a given Cell are validated about `cell_id` of `routes` to ensure that given Cell is authoritative to handle the data. #### More challenges of this proposal 1. There is no streaming replication capability for Elasticsearch, but you could snapshot the whole Elasticsearch index and recreate, but this takes hours. - It could be handled by pausing Elasticsearch indexing on the initial cell during + It could be handled by pausing Elasticsearch indexing on the initial Cell during the migration as indexing downtime is not a big issue, but this still needs - to be coordinated with the migration process + to be coordinated with the migration process. 1. Syncing Redis, Gitaly, CI Postgres, Main Postgres, registry Postgres, other new data stores snapshots in an online system would likely lead to gaps without a long downtime. You need to choose a sync point and at the sync @@ -88,39 +64,31 @@ physical replication, etc. there are to migrate at the same time the longer the write downtime for the failover. We would also need to find a reliable place in the application to actually block updates to all these systems with a high degree of - confidence. In the past we've only been confident by shutting down all rails - services because any rails process could write directly to any of these at + confidence. In the past we've only been confident by shutting down all Rails + services because any Rails process could write directly to any of these at any time due to async workloads or other surprising code paths. 1. How to efficiently delete all the orphaned data. Locating all `ci_builds` - associated with half the organizations would be very expensive if we have to + associated with half the Organizations would be very expensive if we have to do joins. We haven't yet determined if we'd want to store an `organization_id` column on every table, but this is the kind of thing it would be helpful for. -### 3.2. Migrate organization from an existing Cell - -This is different to split, as we intend to perform logical and selective replication -of data belonging to a single organization. +### 3.2. Migrate Organization from an existing Cell -Today this type of selective replication is only implemented by Gitaly where we can migrate -Git repository from a single Gitaly node to another with minimal downtime. +This is different to split, as we intend to perform logical and selective replication of data belonging to a single Organization. +Today this type of selective replication is only implemented by Gitaly where we can migrate Git repository from a single Gitaly node to another with minimal downtime. -In this model we would require identifying all resources belonging to a given organization: -database rows, object storage files, Git repositories, etc. and selectively copy them over -to another (likely) existing Cell importing data into it. Ideally ensuring that we can -perform logical replication live of all changed data, but change similarly to split -which Cell is authoritative for this organization. +In this model we would require identifying all resources belonging to a given Organization: database rows, object storage files, Git repositories, etc. and selectively copy them over to another (likely) existing Cell importing data into it. +Ideally ensuring that we can perform logical replication live of all changed data, but change similarly to split which Cell is authoritative for this Organization. -1. It is hard to identify all resources belonging to organization. -1. It requires either downtime for organization or a robust system to identify - live changes made. -1. It likely will require a full database structure analysis (more robust than project import/export) - to perform selective PostgreSQL logical replication. +1. It is hard to identify all resources belonging to an Organization. +1. It requires either downtime for the Organization or a robust system to identify live changes made. +1. It likely will require a full database structure analysis (more robust than Project import/export) to perform selective PostgreSQL logical replication. #### More challenges of this proposal 1. Logical replication is still not performant enough to keep up with our scale. Even if we could use logical replication we still don't have an - efficient way to filter data related to a single organization without + efficient way to filter data related to a single Organization without joining all the way to the `organizations` table which will slow down logical replication dramatically. diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-database-sequences.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-database-sequences.md index d94dc3be864..2aeaaed7d64 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-database-sequences.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-database-sequences.md @@ -6,15 +6,6 @@ description: 'Cells: Database Sequences' <!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> -DISCLAIMER: -This page may contain information related to upcoming products, features and -functionality. It is important to note that the information presented is for -informational purposes only, so please do not rely on the information for -purchasing or planning purposes. Just like with all projects, the items -mentioned on the page are subject to change or delay, and the development, -release, and timing of any products, features, or functionality remain at the -sole discretion of GitLab Inc. - This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add them in the future. This is one possible architecture for Cells, and we intend to @@ -24,14 +15,10 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Database Sequences -GitLab today ensures that every database row create has unique ID, allowing -to access Merge Request, CI Job or Project by a known global ID. - -Cells will use many distinct and not connected databases, each of them having -a separate IDs for most of entities. - -It might be desirable to retain globally unique IDs for all database rows -to allow migrating resources between Cells in the future. +GitLab today ensures that every database row create has a unique ID, allowing to access a merge request, CI Job or Project by a known global ID. +Cells will use many distinct and not connected databases, each of them having a separate ID for most entities. +At a minimum, any ID referenced between a Cell and the shared schema will need to be unique across the cluster to avoid ambiguous references. +Further to required global IDs, it might also be desirable to retain globally unique IDs for all database rows to allow migrating resources between Cells in the future. ## 1. Definition @@ -39,54 +26,46 @@ to allow migrating resources between Cells in the future. ## 3. Proposal -This are some preliminary ideas how we can retain unique IDs across the system. +These are some preliminary ideas how we can retain unique IDs across the system. ### 3.1. UUID -Instead of using incremental sequences use UUID (128 bit) that is stored in database. +Instead of using incremental sequences, use UUID (128 bit) that is stored in the database. -- This might break existing IDs and requires adding UUID column for all existing tables. +- This might break existing IDs and requires adding a UUID column for all existing tables. - This makes all indexes larger as it requires storing 128 bit instead of 32/64 bit in index. ### 3.2. Use Cell index encoded in ID -Since significant number of tables already use 64 bit ID numbers we could use MSB to encode -Cell ID effectively enabling +Because a significant number of tables already use 64 bit ID numbers we could use MSB to encode the Cell ID: -- This might limit amount of Cells that can be enabled in system, as we might decide to only - allocate 1024 possible Cell numbers. -- This might make IDs to be migratable between Cells, since even if entity from Cell 1 is migrated to Cell 100 - this ID would still be unique. -- If resources are migrated the ID itself will not be enough to decode Cell number and we would need - lookup table. +- This might limit the amount of Cells that can be enabled in a system, as we might decide to only allocate 1024 possible Cell numbers. +- This would make it possible to migrate IDs between Cells, because even if an entity from Cell 1 is migrated to Cell 100 this ID would still be unique. +- If resources are migrated the ID itself will not be enough to decode the Cell number and we would need a lookup table. - This requires updating all IDs to 32 bits. ### 3.3. Allocate sequence ranges from central place -Each Cell might receive its own range of the sequences as they are consumed from a centrally managed place. -Once Cell consumes all IDs assigned for a given table it would be replenished and a next range would be allocated. +Each Cell might receive its own range of sequences as they are consumed from a centrally managed place. +Once a Cell consumes all IDs assigned for a given table it would be replenished and a next range would be allocated. Ranges would be tracked to provide a faster lookup table if a random access pattern is required. -- This might make IDs to be migratable between Cells, since even if entity from Cell 1 is migrated to Cell 100 - this ID would still be unique. -- If resources are migrated the ID itself will not be enough to decode Cell number and we would need - much more robust lookup table as we could be breaking previously assigned sequence ranges. +- This might make IDs migratable between Cells, because even if an entity from Cell 1 is migrated to Cell 100 this ID would still be unique. +- If resources are migrated the ID itself will not be enough to decode the Cell number and we would need a much more robust lookup table as we could be breaking previously assigned sequence ranges. - This does not require updating all IDs to 64 bits. -- This adds some performance penalty to all `INSERT` statements in Postgres or at least from Rails as we need to check for the sequence number and potentially wait for our range to be refreshed from the ID server +- This adds some performance penalty to all `INSERT` statements in Postgres or at least from Rails as we need to check for the sequence number and potentially wait for our range to be refreshed from the ID server. - The available range will need to be stored and incremented in a centralized place so that concurrent transactions cannot possibly get the same value. ### 3.4. Define only some tables to require unique IDs -Maybe this is acceptable only for some tables to have a globally unique IDs. It could be projects, groups -and other top-level entities. All other tables like `merge_requests` would only offer Cell-local ID, -but when referenced outside it would rather use IID (an ID that is monotonic in context of a given resource, like project). +Maybe it is acceptable only for some tables to have a globally unique IDs. It could be Projects, Groups and other top-level entities. +All other tables like `merge_requests` would only offer a Cell-local ID, but when referenced outside it would rather use an IID (an ID that is monotonic in context of a given resource, like a Project). -- This makes the ID 10000 for `merge_requests` be present on all Cells, which might be sometimes confusing - as for uniqueness of the resource. -- This might make random access by ID (if ever needed) be impossible without using composite key, like: `project_id+merge_request_id`. -- This would require us to implement a transformation/generation of new ID if we need to migrate records to another cell. This can lead to very difficult migration processes when these IDs are also used as foreign keys for other records being migrated. -- If IDs need to change when moving between cells this means that any links to records by ID would no longer work even if those links included the `project_id`. -- If we plan to allow these ids to not be unique and change the unique constraint to be based on a composite key then we'd need to update all foreign key references to be based on the composite key +- This makes the ID 10000 for `merge_requests` be present on all Cells, which might be sometimes confusing regarding the uniqueness of the resource. +- This might make random access by ID (if ever needed) impossible without using a composite key, like: `project_id+merge_request_id`. +- This would require us to implement a transformation/generation of new ID if we need to migrate records to another Cell. This can lead to very difficult migration processes when these IDs are also used as foreign keys for other records being migrated. +- If IDs need to change when moving between Cells this means that any links to records by ID would no longer work even if those links included the `project_id`. +- If we plan to allow these IDs to not be unique and change the unique constraint to be based on a composite key then we'd need to update all foreign key references to be based on the composite key. ## 4. Evaluation diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-explore.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-explore.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..4eab99d63e7 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-explore.md @@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ +--- +stage: enablement +group: Tenant Scale +description: 'Cells: Explore' +--- + +<!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> + +This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the +Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add +them in the future. This is one possible architecture for Cells, and we intend to +contrast this with alternatives before deciding which approach to implement. +This documentation will be kept even if we decide not to implement this so that +we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. + +# Cells: Explore + +Explore may not play a critical role in GitLab as it functions today, but GitLab today is not isolated. It is the isolation that makes Explore or some viable replacement necessary. + +The existing Group and Project Explore will initially be scoped to an Organization. However, there is a need for a global Explore that spans across Organizations to support the discoverability of public Groups and Projects, in particular in the context of discovering open source Projects. See user feedback [here](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/21582#note_1458298192) and [here](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/418228#note_1470045468). + +## 1. Definition + +The Explore functionality helps users in discovering Groups and Projects. Unauthenticated Users are only able to explore public Groups and Projects, authenticated Users can see all the Groups and Projects that they have access to, including private and internal Groups and Projects. + +## 2. Data flow + +## 3. Proposal + +The Explore feature problem falls under the broader umbrella of solving inter-Cell communication. [This topic warrants deeper research](index.md#can-different-cells-communicate-with-each-other). + +Below are possible directions for further investigation. + +### 3.1. Read only table mirror + +- Create a `shared_projects` table in the shared cluster-wide database. +- The model for this table is read-only. No inserts/updates/deletes are allowed. +- The table is filled with data (or a subset of data) from the Projects Cell-local table. + - The write model Project (which is Cell-local) writes to the local database. We will primarily use this model for anything Cell-local. + - This data is synchronized with `shared_projects` via a background job any time something changes. + - The data in `shared_projects` is stored normalized, so that all the information necessary to display the Project Explore is there. +- The Project Explore (as of today) is part of an instance-wide functionality, since it's not namespaced to any organizations/groups. + - This section will read data using the read model for `shared_projects`. +- Once the user clicks on a Project, they are redirected to the Cell containing the Organization. + +Downsides: + +- Need to have an explicit pattern to access instance-wide data. This however may be useful for admin functionalities too. +- The Project Explore may not be as rich in features as it is today (various filtering options, role you have on that Project, etc.). +- Extra complexity in managing CQRS. + +### 3.2 Explore scoped to an Organization + +The Project Explore and Group Explore are scoped to an Organization. + +Downsides: + +- No global discoverability of Groups and Projects. + +## 4. Evaluation + +The existing Group and Project Explore will initially be scoped to an Organization. Considering the [current usage of the Explore feature](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-data/product-analytics/-/issues/1302#note_1491215521), we deem this acceptable. Since all existing Users, Groups and Projects will initially be part of the default Organization, Groups and Projects will remain explorable and accessible as they are today. Only once existing Groups and Projects are moved out of the default Organization into different Organizations will this become a noticeable problem. Solutions to mitigate this are discussed in [issue #418228](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/418228). Ultimately, Explore could be replaced with a better search experience altogether. + +## 4.1. Pros + +- Initially the lack of discoverability will not be a problem. +- Only around [1.5% of all exisiting Users are using the Explore functionality on a monthly basis](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-data/product-analytics/-/issues/1302#note_1491215521). + +## 4.2. Cons + +- The GitLab owned top-level Groups would be some of the first to be moved into their own Organization and thus be detached from the explorability of the default Organization. diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-git-access.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-git-access.md index 70b3f136904..611b4db5f43 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-git-access.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-git-access.md @@ -15,35 +15,30 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Git Access -This document describes impact of Cells architecture on all Git access (over HTTPS and SSH) -patterns providing explanation of how potentially those features should be changed -to work well with Cells. +This document describes impact of Cells architecture on all Git access (over HTTPS and SSH) patterns providing explanation of how potentially those features should be changed to work well with Cells. ## 1. Definition -Git access is done through out the application. It can be an operation performed by the system -(read Git repository) or by user (create a new file via Web IDE, `git clone` or `git push` via command line). +Git access is done throughout the application. +It can be an operation performed by the system (read Git repository) or by a user (create a new file via Web IDE, `git clone` or `git push` via command line). +The Cells architecture defines that all Git repositories will be local to the Cell, so no repository could be shared with another Cell. -The Cells architecture defines that all Git repositories will be local to the Cell, -so no repository could be shared with another Cell. - -The Cells architecture will require that any Git operation done can only be handled by a Cell holding -the data. It means that any operation either via Web interface, API, or GraphQL needs to be routed -to the correct Cell. It means that any `git clone` or `git push` operation can only be performed -in a context of a Cell. +The Cells architecture will require that any Git operation can only be handled by a Cell holding the data. +It means that any operation either via Web interface, API, or GraphQL needs to be routed to the correct Cell. +It means that any `git clone` or `git push` operation can only be performed in the context of a Cell. ## 2. Data flow -The are various operations performed today by the GitLab on a Git repository. This describes -the data flow how they behave today to better represent the impact. +The are various operations performed today by GitLab on a Git repository. +This describes the data flow how they behave today to better represent the impact. -It appears that Git access does require changes only to a few endpoints that are scoped to project. +It appears that Git access does require changes only to a few endpoints that are scoped to a Project. There appear to be different types of repositories: - Project: assigned to Group - Wiki: additional repository assigned to Project - Design: similar to Wiki, additional repository assigned to Project -- Snippet: creates a virtual project to hold repository, likely tied to the User +- Snippet: creates a virtual Project to hold repository, likely tied to the User ### 2.1. Git clone over HTTPS @@ -131,9 +126,8 @@ sequenceDiagram ## 3. Proposal -The Cells stateless router proposal requires that any ambiguous path (that is not routable) -will be made to be routable. It means that at least the following paths will have to be updated -do introduce a routable entity (project, group, or organization). +The Cells stateless router proposal requires that any ambiguous path (that is not routable) will be made routable. +It means that at least the following paths will have to be updated to introduce a routable entity (Project, Group, or Organization). Change: @@ -150,9 +144,7 @@ Where: ## 4. Evaluation Supporting Git repositories if a Cell can access only its own repositories does not appear to be complex. - -The one major complication is supporting snippets, but this likely falls in the same category as for the approach -to support user's personal namespaces. +The one major complication is supporting snippets, but this likely falls in the same category as for the approach to support a user's Personal Namespace. ## 4.1. Pros @@ -161,4 +153,4 @@ to support user's personal namespaces. ## 4.2. Cons 1. The sharing of repositories objects is limited to the given Cell and Gitaly node. -1. The across-Cells forks are likely impossible to be supported (discover: how this work today across different Gitaly node). +1. Cross-Cells forks are likely impossible to be supported (discover: How this works today across different Gitaly node). diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-global-search.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-global-search.md index c1e2b93bc2d..475db381ff5 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-global-search.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-global-search.md @@ -6,15 +6,6 @@ description: 'Cells: Global search' <!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> -DISCLAIMER: -This page may contain information related to upcoming products, features and -functionality. It is important to note that the information presented is for -informational purposes only, so please do not rely on the information for -purchasing or planning purposes. Just like with all projects, the items -mentioned on the page are subject to change or delay, and the development, -release, and timing of any products, features, or functionality remain at the -sole discretion of GitLab Inc. - This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add them in the future. This is one possible architecture for Cells, and we intend to @@ -24,12 +15,9 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Global search -When we introduce multiple Cells we intend to isolate all services related to -those Cells. This will include Elasticsearch which means our current global -search functionality will not work. It may be possible to implement aggregated -search across all cells, but it is unlikely to be performant to do fan-out -searches across all cells especially once you start to do pagination which -requires setting the correct offset and page number for each search. +When we introduce multiple Cells we intend to isolate all services related to those Cells. +This will include Elasticsearch which means our current global search functionality will not work. +It may be possible to implement aggregated search across all Cells, but it is unlikely to be performant to do fan-out searches across all Cells especially once you start to do pagination which requires setting the correct offset and page number for each search. ## 1. Definition @@ -37,9 +25,8 @@ requires setting the correct offset and page number for each search. ## 3. Proposal -Likely first versions of Cells will simply not support global searches and then -we may later consider if building global searches to support popular use cases -is worthwhile. +Likely the first versions of Cells will not support global searches. +Later, we may consider if building global searches to support popular use cases is worthwhile. ## 4. Evaluation diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-graphql.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-graphql.md index d936a1b81ba..e8850dfbee3 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-graphql.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-graphql.md @@ -6,15 +6,6 @@ description: 'Cells: GraphQL' <!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> -DISCLAIMER: -This page may contain information related to upcoming products, features and -functionality. It is important to note that the information presented is for -informational purposes only, so please do not rely on the information for -purchasing or planning purposes. Just like with all projects, the items -mentioned on the page are subject to change or delay, and the development, -release, and timing of any products, features, or functionality remain at the -sole discretion of GitLab Inc. - This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add them in the future. This is one possible architecture for Cells, and we intend to @@ -25,9 +16,8 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: GraphQL GitLab extensively uses GraphQL to perform efficient data query operations. -GraphQL due to it's nature is not directly routable. The way how GitLab uses -it calls the `/api/graphql` endpoint, and only query or mutation of body request -might define where the data can be accessed. +GraphQL due to it's nature is not directly routable. +The way GitLab uses it calls the `/api/graphql` endpoint, and only the query or mutation of the body request might define where the data can be accessed. ## 1. Definition @@ -35,21 +25,19 @@ might define where the data can be accessed. ## 3. Proposal -There are at least two main ways to implement GraphQL in Cells architecture. +There are at least two main ways to implement GraphQL in a Cells architecture. ### 3.1. GraphQL routable by endpoint Change `/api/graphql` to `/api/organization/<organization>/graphql`. -- This breaks all existing usages of `/api/graphql` endpoint - since the API URI is changed. +- This breaks all existing usages of `/api/graphql` endpoint because the API URI is changed. ### 3.2. GraphQL routable by body As part of router parse GraphQL body to find a routable entity, like `project`. -- This still makes the GraphQL query be executed only in context of a given Cell - and not allowing the data to be merged. +- This still makes the GraphQL query be executed only in context of a given Cell and not allowing the data to be merged. ```json # Good example @@ -71,11 +59,9 @@ As part of router parse GraphQL body to find a routable entity, like `project`. ### 3.3. Merging GraphQL Proxy -Implement as part of router GraphQL Proxy which can parse body -and merge results from many Cells. +Implement as part of router GraphQL Proxy which can parse body and merge results from many Cells. -- This might make pagination hard to achieve, or we might assume that - we execute many queries of which results are merged across all Cells. +- This might make pagination hard to achieve, or we might assume that we execute many queries of which results are merged across all Cells. ```json { diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-organizations.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-organizations.md index 03178d9e6ce..f1527b40ef4 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-organizations.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-organizations.md @@ -6,15 +6,6 @@ description: 'Cells: Organizations' <!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> -DISCLAIMER: -This page may contain information related to upcoming products, features and -functionality. It is important to note that the information presented is for -informational purposes only, so please do not rely on the information for -purchasing or planning purposes. Just like with all projects, the items -mentioned on the page are subject to change or delay, and the development, -release, and timing of any products, features, or functionality remain at the -sole discretion of GitLab Inc. - This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add them in the future. This is one possible architecture for Cells, and we intend to @@ -24,36 +15,22 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Organizations -One of the major designs of Cells architecture is strong isolation between Groups. -Organizations as described by this blueprint provides a way to have plausible UX -for joining together many Groups that are isolated from the rest of systems. +One of the major designs of a Cells architecture is strong isolation between Groups. +Organizations as described by the [Organization blueprint](../organization/index.md) provides a way to have plausible UX for joining together many Groups that are isolated from the rest of the system. ## 1. Definition -Cells do require that all groups and projects of a single organization can -only be stored on a single Cell since a Cell can only access data that it holds locally -and has very limited capabilities to read information from other Cells. - -Cells with Organizations do require strong isolation between organizations. - -It will have significant implications on various user-facing features, -like Todos, dropdowns allowing to select projects, references to other issues -or projects, or any other social functions present at GitLab. Today those functions -were able to reference anything in the whole system. With the introduction of -organizations such will be forbidden. - -This problem definition aims to answer effort and implications required to add -strong isolation between organizations to the system. Including features affected -and their data processing flow. The purpose is to ensure that our solution when -implemented consistently avoids data leakage between organizations residing on -a single Cell. +Cells do require that all Groups and Projects of a single Organization can only be stored on a single Cell because a Cell can only access data that it holds locally and has very limited capabilities to read information from other Cells. -## 2. Data flow +Cells with Organizations do require strong isolation between Organizations. -## 3. Proposal +It will have significant implications on various user-facing features, like Todos, dropdowns allowing to select Projects, references to other issues or Projects, or any other social functions present at GitLab. +Today those functions were able to reference anything in the whole system. +With the introduction of Organizations this will be forbidden. -## 4. Evaluation +This problem definition aims to answer effort and implications required to add strong isolation between Organizations to the system, including features affected and their data processing flow. +The purpose is to ensure that our solution when implemented consistently avoids data leakage between Organizations residing on a single Cell. -## 4.1. Pros +## 2. Proposal -## 4.2. Cons +See the [Organization blueprint](../organization/index.md). diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-dashboard.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-personal-access-tokens.md index 135f69c6ed3..3aca9f1e116 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-dashboard.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-personal-access-tokens.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ --- stage: enablement group: Tenant Scale -description: 'Cells: Dashboard' +description: 'Cells: Personal Access Tokens' --- <!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> @@ -13,12 +13,13 @@ contrast this with alternatives before deciding which approach to implement. This documentation will be kept even if we decide not to implement this so that we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. -# Cells: Dashboard - -> TL;DR +# Cells: Personal Access Tokens ## 1. Definition +Personal Access Tokens associated with a User are a way for Users to interact with the API of GitLab to perform operations. +Personal Access Tokens today are scoped to the User, and can access all Groups that a User has access to. + ## 2. Data flow ## 3. Proposal diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-router-endpoints-classification.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-router-endpoints-classification.md index 7c2974ca258..d403d6ff963 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-router-endpoints-classification.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-router-endpoints-classification.md @@ -6,15 +6,6 @@ description: 'Cells: Router Endpoints Classification' <!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> -DISCLAIMER: -This page may contain information related to upcoming products, features and -functionality. It is important to note that the information presented is for -informational purposes only, so please do not rely on the information for -purchasing or planning purposes. Just like with all projects, the items -mentioned on the page are subject to change or delay, and the development, -release, and timing of any products, features, or functionality remain at the -sole discretion of GitLab Inc. - This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add them in the future. This is one possible architecture for Cells, and we intend to @@ -24,15 +15,11 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Router Endpoints Classification -Classification of all endpoints is essential to properly route request -hitting load balancer of a GitLab installation to a Cell that can serve it. - -Each Cell should be able to decode each request and classify for which Cell -it belongs to. +Classification of all endpoints is essential to properly route requests hitting the load balancer of a GitLab installation to a Cell that can serve it. +Each Cell should be able to decode each request and classify which Cell it belongs to. -GitLab currently implements hundreds of endpoints. This document tries -to describe various techniques that can be implemented to allow the Rails -to provide this information efficiently. +GitLab currently implements hundreds of endpoints. +This document tries to describe various techniques that can be implemented to allow the Rails to provide this information efficiently. ## 1. Definition diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-schema-changes.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-schema-changes.md index d712b24a8a0..dd0f6c0705c 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-schema-changes.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-schema-changes.md @@ -6,15 +6,6 @@ description: 'Cells: Schema changes' <!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> -DISCLAIMER: -This page may contain information related to upcoming products, features and -functionality. It is important to note that the information presented is for -informational purposes only, so please do not rely on the information for -purchasing or planning purposes. Just like with all projects, the items -mentioned on the page are subject to change or delay, and the development, -release, and timing of any products, features, or functionality remain at the -sole discretion of GitLab Inc. - This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add them in the future. This is one possible architecture for Cells, and we intend to @@ -24,24 +15,15 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Schema changes -When we introduce multiple Cells that own their own databases this will -complicate the process of making schema changes to Postgres and Elasticsearch. -Today we already need to be careful to make changes comply with our zero -downtime deployments. For example, -[when removing a column we need to make changes over 3 separate deployments](../../../development/database/avoiding_downtime_in_migrations.md#dropping-columns). -We have tooling like `post_migrate` that helps with these kinds of changes to -reduce the number of merge requests needed, but these will be complicated when -we are dealing with deploying multiple rails applications that will be at -different versions at any one time. This problem will be particularly tricky to -solve for shared databases like our plan to share the `users` related tables -among all Cells. - -A key benefit of Cells may be that it allows us to run different -customers on different versions of GitLab. We may choose to update our own cell -before all our customers giving us even more flexibility than our current -canary architecture. But doing this means that schema changes need to have even -more versions of backward compatibility support which could slow down -development as we need extra steps to make schema changes. +When we introduce multiple Cells that own their own databases this will complicate the process of making schema changes to Postgres and Elasticsearch. +Today we already need to be careful to make changes comply with our zero downtime deployments. +For example, [when removing a column we need to make changes over 3 separate deployments](../../../development/database/avoiding_downtime_in_migrations.md#dropping-columns). +We have tooling like `post_migrate` that helps with these kinds of changes to reduce the number of merge requests needed, but these will be complicated when we are dealing with deploying multiple Rails applications that will be at different versions at any one time. +This problem will be particularly tricky to solve for shared databases like our plan to share the `users` related tables among all Cells. + +A key benefit of Cells may be that it allows us to run different customers on different versions of GitLab. +We may choose to update our own Cell before all our customers giving us even more flexibility than our current canary architecture. +But doing this means that schema changes need to have even more versions of backward compatibility support which could slow down development as we need extra steps to make schema changes. ## 1. Definition diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-secrets.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-secrets.md index 50ccf926b4d..681c229711d 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-secrets.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-secrets.md @@ -15,32 +15,26 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Secrets -Where possible, each cell should have its own distinct set of secrets. -However, there will be some secrets that will be required to be the same for all -cells in the cluster +Where possible, each Cell should have its own distinct set of secrets. +However, there will be some secrets that will be required to be the same for all Cells in the cluster. ## 1. Definition -GitLab has a lot of -[secrets](https://docs.gitlab.com/charts/installation/secrets.html) that needs -to be configured. - -Some secrets are for inter-component communication, for example, `GitLab Shell secret`, -and used only within a cell. - +GitLab has a lot of [secrets](https://docs.gitlab.com/charts/installation/secrets.html) that need to be configured. +Some secrets are for inter-component communication, for example, `GitLab Shell secret`, and used only within a Cell. Some secrets are used for features, for example, `ci_jwt_signing_key`. ## 2. Data flow ## 3. Proposal -1. Secrets used for features will need to be consistent across all cells, so that the UX is consistent. +1. Secrets used for features will need to be consistent across all Cells, so that the UX is consistent. 1. This is especially true for the `db_key_base` secret which is used for - encrypting data at rest in the database - so that projects that are - transferred to another cell will continue to work. We do not want to have - to re-encrypt such rows when we move projects/groups between cells. -1. Secrets which are used for intra-cell communication only should be uniquely generated - per-cell. + encrypting data at rest in the database - so that Projects that are + transferred to another Cell will continue to work. We do not want to have + to re-encrypt such rows when we move Projects/Groups between Cells. +1. Secrets which are used for intra-Cell communication only should be uniquely generated + per Cell. ## 4. Evaluation diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-snippets.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-snippets.md index f5e72c0e3a0..bde0b098609 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-snippets.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-snippets.md @@ -15,16 +15,42 @@ we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. # Cells: Snippets -> TL;DR +Snippets will be scoped to an Organization. Initially it will not be possible to aggregate snippet collections across Organizations. See also [issue #416954](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/416954). ## 1. Definition +Two different types of snippets exist: + +- [Project snippets](../../../api/project_snippets.md). These snippets have URLs + like `/<group>/<project>/-/snippets/123` +- [Personal snippets](../../../user/snippets.md). These snippets have URLs like + `/-/snippets/123` + +Snippets are backed by a Git repository. + ## 2. Data flow ## 3. Proposal +### 3.1. Scoped to an organization + +Both project and personal snippets will be scoped to an Organization. + +- Project snippets URLs will remain unchanged, as the URLs are routable. +- Personal snippets URLs will need to change to be `/-/organizations/<organization>/snippets/123`, + so that the URL is routeable + +Creation of snippets will also be scoped to a User's current Organization. Because of that, we recommend renaming `personal snippets` to `organization snippets` once the Organization is rolled out. A User can create many independent snippet collections across multiple Organizations. + ## 4. Evaluation +Snippets are scoped to an Organization because Gitaly is confined to a Cell. + ## 4.1. Pros +- No need to have clusterwide Gitaly. + ## 4.2. Cons + +- We will break [snippet discovery](/ee/user/snippets.md#discover-snippets). +- Snippet access may become subordinate to the visibility of the Organization. diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-user-profile.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-user-profile.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..fc02548f371 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-user-profile.md @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ +--- +stage: enablement +group: Tenant Scale +description: 'Cells: User Profile' +--- + +<!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> + +This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the +Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add +them in the future. This is one possible architecture for Cells, and we intend to +contrast this with alternatives before deciding which approach to implement. +This documentation will be kept even if we decide not to implement this so that +we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. + +# Cells: User Profile + +The existing User Profiles will initially be scoped to an Organization. Long-term, we should consider aggregating parts of the User activity across Organizations to enable Users a global view of their contributions. + +## 1. Definition + +Each GitLab account has a [User Profile](../../../user/profile/index.md), which contains information about the User and their GitLab activity. + +## 2. Data flow + +## 3. Proposal + +User Profiles will be scoped to an Organization. + +- Users can set a Home Organization as their main Organization. +- Users who do not exist in the database at all display a 404 not found error when trying to access their User Profile. +- User who haven't contributed to an Organization display their User Profile with an empty state. +- When displaying a User Profile empty state, if the profile has a Home Organization set to another Organization, we display a call-to-action allowing navigation to the main Organization. +- User Profile URLs will not reference the Organization and remain as: `/<username>`. We follow the same pattern as is used for `Your Work`, meaning that profiles are always seen in the context of an Organization. +- Breadcrumbs on the User Profile will present as `[Organization Name] / [Username]`. + +See [issue #411931](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/411931) for design proposals. + +## 4. Evaluation + +We expect the [majority of Users to perform most of their activity in one single Organization](../organization/index.md#data-exploration). +This is why we deem it acceptable to scope the User Profile to an Organization at first. +More discovery is necessary to understand which aspects of the current User Profile are relevant to showcase contributions in a global context. + +## 4.1. Pros + +- Viewing a User Profile scoped to an Organization allows you to focus on contributions that are most relevant to your Organization, filtering out the User's other activities. +- Existing User Profile URLs do not break. + +## 4.2. Cons + +- Users will lose the ability to display their entire activity, which may lessen the effectiveness of using their User Profile as a resume of achievements when working across multiple Organizations. diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-your-work.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-your-work.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..08bb0bed709 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/cells-feature-your-work.md @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ +--- +stage: enablement +group: Tenant Scale +description: 'Cells: Your Work' +--- + +<!-- vale gitlab.FutureTense = NO --> + +This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the +Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add +them in the future. This is one possible architecture for Cells, and we intend to +contrast this with alternatives before deciding which approach to implement. +This documentation will be kept even if we decide not to implement this so that +we can document the reasons for not choosing this approach. + +# Cells: Your Work + +Your Work will be scoped to an Organization. +Counts presented in the individual dashboards will relate to the selected Organization. + +## 1. Definition + +When accessing `gitlab.com/dashboard/`, users can find a [focused view of items that they have access to](../../../tutorials/left_sidebar/index.md#use-a-more-focused-view). +This overview contains dashboards relating to: + +- Projects +- Groups +- Issues +- Merge requests +- To-Do list +- Milestones +- Snippets +- Activity +- Workspaces +- Environments +- Operations +- Security + +## 2. Data flow + +## 3. Proposal + +Your Work will be scoped to an Organization, giving the user an overview of all the items they can access in the Organization they are currently viewing. + +- Issue, Merge request and To-Do list counts will refer to the selected Organization. + +## 4. Evaluation + +Scoping Your Work to an Organization makes sense in the context of the [proposed Organization navigation](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/417778). +Considering that [we expect most users to work in a single Organization](../organization/index.md#data-exploration), we deem this impact acceptable. + +## 4.1. Pros + +- Viewing Your Work scoped to an Organization allows Users to focus on content that is most relevant to their currently selected Organization. + +## 4.2. Cons + +- Users working across multiple Organizations will have to navigate to each Organization to access all of their work items. diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/cells-and-fulfillment.drawio.png b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/cells-and-fulfillment.drawio.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 00000000000..c5fff9dbca5 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/cells-and-fulfillment.drawio.png diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/index.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/index.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..77d12612819 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/index.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +--- +stage: enablement +group: Tenant Scale +description: 'Cells: Diagrams' +--- + +# Diagrams + +Diagrams used in Cells are created with [draw.io](https://draw.io). + +## Edit existing diagrams + +Load the `.drawio.png` or `.drawio.svg` file directly into **draw.io**, which you can use in several ways: + +- Best: Use the [draw.io integration in VSCode](https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=hediet.vscode-drawio). +- Good: Install on MacOS with `brew install drawio` or download the [draw.io desktop](https://github.com/jgraph/drawio-desktop/releases). +- Good: Install on Linux by downloading the [draw.io desktop](https://github.com/jgraph/drawio-desktop/releases). +- Discouraged: Use the [draw.io website](https://draw.io) to load and save files. + +## Create a diagram + +To create a diagram from a file: + +1. Copy existing file and rename it. Ensure that the extension is `.drawio.png` or `.drawio.svg`. +1. Edit the diagram. +1. Save the file. + +To create a diagram from scratch using [draw.io desktop](https://github.com/jgraph/drawio-desktop/releases): + +1. In **File > New > Create new diagram**, select **Blank diagram**. +1. In **File > Save As**, select **Editable Bitmap .png**, and save with `.drawio.png` extension. +1. To improve image quality, in **File > Properties**, set **Zoom** to **400%**. +1. To save the file with the new zoom setting, select **File > Save**. + +DO NOT use the **File > Export** function. The diagram should be embedded into `.png` for easy editing. diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-cell.drawio.png b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-cell.drawio.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 00000000000..84a6d6d1745 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-cell.drawio.png diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-cluster.drawio.png b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-cluster.drawio.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 00000000000..a6fd790ba5e --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-cluster.drawio.png diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-organization.drawio.png b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-organization.drawio.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 00000000000..f1cb7cd92fe --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-organization.drawio.png diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-top-level-group.drawio.png b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-top-level-group.drawio.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 00000000000..f5535409945 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/diagrams/term-top-level-group.drawio.png diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/glossary.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/glossary.md index c3ec5fd12e4..11a1fc5acc9 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/glossary.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/glossary.md @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ We use the following terms to describe components and properties of the Cells ar A Cell is a set of infrastructure components that contains multiple top-level groups that belong to different organizations. The components include both datastores (PostgreSQL, Redis etc.) and stateless services (web etc.). The infrastructure components provided within a Cell are shared among organizations and their top-level groups but not shared with other Cells. This isolation of infrastructure components means that Cells are independent from each other. -<img src="images/term-cell.png" height="200"> +<img src="diagrams/term-cell.drawio.png" height="200"> ### Cell properties @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Discouraged synonyms: GitLab instance, cluster, shard A cluster is a collection of Cells. -<img src="images/term-cluster.png" height="300"> +<img src="diagrams/term-cluster.drawio.png" height="300"> ### Cluster properties @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ Organizations work under the following assumptions: 1. Users understand that the majority of pages they view are only scoped to a single organization at a time. 1. Organizations are located on a single cell. - + ### Organization properties @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ Over time there won't be a distinction between a top-level group and a group. Al Discouraged synonyms: Root-level namespace - + ### Top-level group properties diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/goals.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/goals.md index 67dc25625c7..3f3923aa255 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/goals.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/goals.md @@ -8,7 +8,11 @@ description: 'Cells: Goals' ## Scalability -The main goal of this new shared-infrastructure architecture is to provide additional scalability for our SaaS Platform. GitLab.com is largely monolithic and we have estimated (internal) that the current architecture has scalability limitations, even when database partitioning and decomposition are taken into account. +The main goal of this new shared-infrastructure architecture is to provide additional scalability for our SaaS Platform. +GitLab.com is largely monolithic and we have estimated (internally) that the current architecture has scalability limitations, +particularly for the [PostgreSQL database](https://gitlab-com.gitlab.io/gl-infra/tamland/patroni.html), and +[Redis](https://gitlab-com.gitlab.io/gl-infra/tamland/redis.html) non-horizontally scalable resources, +even when database partitioning and decomposition are taken into account. Cells provide a horizontally scalable solution because additional Cells can be created based on demand. Cells can be provisioned and tuned as needed for optimal scalability. diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/pods-and-fulfillment.png b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/pods-and-fulfillment.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index fea32d1800e..00000000000 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/pods-and-fulfillment.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-cell.png b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-cell.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 799b2eccd95..00000000000 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-cell.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-cluster.png b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-cluster.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 03c92850b64..00000000000 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-cluster.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-organization.png b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-organization.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index dd6367ad84a..00000000000 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-organization.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-top-level-group.png b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-top-level-group.png Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 4af2468f50d..00000000000 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/images/term-top-level-group.png +++ /dev/null diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/impact.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/impact.md index 878af4d1a5e..30c70dca0cc 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/impact.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/impact.md @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ We synced with Fulfillment ([recording](https://youtu.be/FkQF3uF7vTY)) to discus A rough representation of this is: - + ### Potential conflicts with Cells diff --git a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/index.md b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/index.md index dcd28707890..0e93b9d5d3b 100644 --- a/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/index.md +++ b/doc/architecture/blueprints/cells/index.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ --- status: accepted creation-date: "2022-09-07" -authors: [ "@ayufan", "@fzimmer", "@DylanGriffith", "@lohrc" ] +authors: [ "@ayufan", "@fzimmer", "@DylanGriffith", "@lohrc", "@tkuah" ] coach: "@ayufan" approvers: [ "@lohrc" ] owning-stage: "~devops::enablement" @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ participating-stages: [] This document is a work-in-progress and represents a very early state of the Cells design. Significant aspects are not documented, though we expect to add them in the future. -Cells is a new architecture for our Software as a Service platform. This architecture is horizontally-scalable, resilient, and provides a more consistent user experience. It may also provide additional features in the future, such as data residency control (regions) and federated features. +Cells is a new architecture for our software as a service platform. This architecture is horizontally scalable, resilient, and provides a more consistent user experience. It may also provide additional features in the future, such as data residency control (regions) and federated features. For more information about Cells, see also: @@ -28,8 +28,7 @@ We can't ship the entire Cells architecture in one go - it is too large. Instead, we are defining key work streams required by the project. Not all objectives need to be fulfilled to reach production readiness. -It is expected that some objectives will not be completed for General Availability (GA), -but will be enough to run Cells in production. +It is expected that some objectives will not be completed for General Availability (GA), but will be enough to run Cells in production. ### 1. Data access layer @@ -45,8 +44,7 @@ Under this objective the following steps are expected: 1. **Allow to share cluster-wide data with database-level data access layer.** - Cells can connect to a database containing shared data. For example: - application settings, users, or routing information. + Cells can connect to a database containing shared data. For example: application settings, users, or routing information. 1. **Evaluate the efficiency of database-level access vs. API-oriented access layer.** @@ -54,7 +52,7 @@ Under this objective the following steps are expected: 1. **Cluster-unique identifiers** - Every object has a unique identifier that can be used to access data across the cluster. The IDs for allocated projects, issues and any other objects are cluster-unique. + Every object has a unique identifier that can be used to access data across the cluster. The IDs for allocated Projects, issues and any other objects are cluster-unique. 1. **Cluster-wide deletions** @@ -62,7 +60,7 @@ Under this objective the following steps are expected: 1. **Data access layer** - Ensure that a stable data-access (versioned) layer that allows to share cluster-wide data is implemented. + Ensure that a stable data access (versioned) layer is implemented that allows to share cluster-wide data. 1. **Database migration** @@ -70,48 +68,38 @@ Under this objective the following steps are expected: ### 2. Essential workflows -To make Cells viable we require to define and support -essential workflows before we can consider the Cells -to be of Beta quality. Essential workflows are meant -to cover the majority of application functionality -that makes the product mostly useable, but with some caveats. +To make Cells viable we require to define and support essential workflows before we can consider the Cells to be of Beta quality. +Essential workflows are meant to cover the majority of application functionality that makes the product mostly useable, but with some caveats. The current approach is to define workflows from top to bottom. The order defines the presumed priority of the items. -This list is not exhaustive as we would be expecting -other teams to help and fix their workflows after -the initial phase, in which we fix the fundamental ones. - -To consider a project ready for the Beta phase, it is expected -that all features defined below are supported by Cells. -In the cases listed below, the workflows define a set of tables -to be properly attributed to the feature. In some cases, -a table with an ambiguous usage has to be broken down. -For example: `uploads` are used to store user avatars, -as well as uploaded attachments for comments. It would be expected -that `uploads` is split into `uploads` (describing group/project-level attachments) -and `global_uploads` (describing, for example, user avatars). - -Except for initial 2-3 quarters this work is highly parallel. -It would be expected that **group::tenant scale** would help other -teams to fix their feature set to work with Cells. The first 2-3 quarters -would be required to define a general split of data and build required tooling. +This list is not exhaustive as we would be expecting other teams to help and fix their workflows after the initial phase, in which we fix the fundamental ones. + +To consider a project ready for the Beta phase, it is expected that all features defined below are supported by Cells. +In the cases listed below, the workflows define a set of tables to be properly attributed to the feature. +In some cases, a table with an ambiguous usage has to be broken down. +For example: `uploads` are used to store user avatars, as well as uploaded attachments for comments. +It would be expected that `uploads` is split into `uploads` (describing Group/Project-level attachments) and `global_uploads` (describing, for example, user avatars). + +Except for the initial 2-3 quarters this work is highly parallel. +It is expected that **group::tenant scale** will help other teams to fix their feature set to work with Cells. +The first 2-3 quarters are required to define a general split of data and build the required tooling. 1. **Instance-wide settings are shared across cluster.** - The Admin Area section for most part is shared across a cluster. + The Admin Area section for the most part is shared across a cluster. 1. **User accounts are shared across cluster.** The purpose is to make `users` cluster-wide. -1. **User can create group.** +1. **User can create Group.** - The purpose is to perform a targeted decomposition of `users` and `namespaces`, because the `namespaces` will be stored locally in the Cell. + The purpose is to perform a targeted decomposition of `users` and `namespaces`, because `namespaces` will be stored locally in the Cell. -1. **User can create project.** +1. **User can create Project.** - The purpose is to perform a targeted decomposition of `users` and `projects`, because the `projects` will be stored locally in the Cell. + The purpose is to perform a targeted decomposition of `users` and `projects`, because `projects` will be stored locally in the Cell. 1. **User can change profile avatar that is shared in cluster.** @@ -119,8 +107,7 @@ would be required to define a general split of data and build required tooling. 1. **User can push to Git repository.** - The purpose is to ensure that essential joins from the projects table are properly attributed to be - Cell-local, and as a result the essential Git workflow is supported. + The purpose is to ensure that essential joins from the Projects table are properly attributed to be Cell-local, and as a result the essential Git workflow is supported. 1. **User can run CI pipeline.** @@ -130,26 +117,26 @@ would be required to define a general split of data and build required tooling. The purpose is to ensure that `issues` and `merge requests` are properly attributed to be `Cell-local`. -1. **User can manage group and project members.** +1. **User can manage Group and Project members.** The `members` table is properly attributed to be either `Cell-local` or `cluster-wide`. 1. **User can manage instance-wide runners.** - The purpose is to scope all CI Runners to be Cell-local. Instance-wide runners in fact become Cell-local runners. The expectation is to provide a user interface view and manage all runners per Cell, instead of per cluster. + The purpose is to scope all CI runners to be Cell-local. Instance-wide runners in fact become Cell-local runners. The expectation is to provide a user interface view and manage all runners per Cell, instead of per cluster. -1. **User is part of organization and can only see information from the organization.** +1. **User is part of Organization and can only see information from the Organization.** - The purpose is to have many organizations per Cell, but never have a single organization spanning across many Cells. This is required to ensure that information shown within an organization is isolated, and does not require fetching information from other Cells. + The purpose is to have many Organizations per Cell, but never have a single Organization spanning across many Cells. This is required to ensure that information shown within an Organization is isolated, and does not require fetching information from other Cells. ### 3. Additional workflows Some of these additional workflows might need to be supported, depending on the group decision. This list is not exhaustive of work needed to be done. -1. **User can use all group-level features.** -1. **User can use all project-level features.** -1. **User can share groups with other groups in an organization.** +1. **User can use all Group-level features.** +1. **User can use all Project-level features.** +1. **User can share Groups with other Groups in an Organization.** 1. **User can create system webhook.** 1. **User can upload and manage packages.** 1. **User can manage security detection features.** @@ -158,13 +145,11 @@ This list is not exhaustive of work needed to be done. ### 4. Routing layer -The routing layer is meant to offer a consistent user experience where all Cells are presented -under a single domain (for example, `gitlab.com`), instead of -having to navigate to separate domains. +The routing layer is meant to offer a consistent user experience where all Cells are presented under a single domain (for example, `gitlab.com`), instead of having to navigate to separate domains. -The user will able to use `https://gitlab.com` to access Cell-enabled GitLab. Depending -on the URL access, it will be transparently proxied to the correct Cell that can serve this particular -information. For example: +The user will be able to use `https://gitlab.com` to access Cell-enabled GitLab. +Depending on the URL access, it will be transparently proxied to the correct Cell that can serve this particular information. +For example: - All requests going to `https://gitlab.com/users/sign_in` are randomly distributed to all Cells. - All requests going to `https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/tree/master` are always directed to Cell 5, for example. @@ -173,9 +158,8 @@ information. For example: 1. **Technology.** We decide what technology the routing service is written in. - The choice is dependent on the best performing language, and the expected way - and place of deployment of the routing layer. If it is required to make - the service multi-cloud it might be required to deploy it to the CDN provider. + The choice is dependent on the best performing language, and the expected way and place of deployment of the routing layer. + If it is required to make the service multi-cloud it might be required to deploy it to the CDN provider. Then the service needs to be written using a technology compatible with the CDN provider. 1. **Cell discovery.** @@ -184,35 +168,29 @@ information. For example: 1. **Router endpoints classification.** - The stateless routing service will fetch and cache information about endpoints - from one of the Cells. We need to implement a protocol that will allow us to - accurately describe the incoming request (its fingerprint), so it can be classified - by one of the Cells, and the results of that can be cached. We also need to implement - a mechanism for negative cache and cache eviction. + The stateless routing service will fetch and cache information about endpoints from one of the Cells. + We need to implement a protocol that will allow us to accurately describe the incoming request (its fingerprint), so it can be classified by one of the Cells, and the results of that can be cached. + We also need to implement a mechanism for negative cache and cache eviction. 1. **GraphQL and other ambiguous endpoints.** - Most endpoints have a unique sharding key: the organization, which directly - or indirectly (via a group or project) can be used to classify endpoints. - Some endpoints are ambiguous in their usage (they don't encode the sharding key), - or the sharding key is stored deep in the payload. In these cases, we need to decide how to handle endpoints like `/api/graphql`. + Most endpoints have a unique sharding key: the Organization, which directly or indirectly (via a Group or Project) can be used to classify endpoints. + Some endpoints are ambiguous in their usage (they don't encode the sharding key), or the sharding key is stored deep in the payload. + In these cases, we need to decide how to handle endpoints like `/api/graphql`. ### 5. Cell deployment -We will run many Cells. To manage them easier, we need to have consistent -deployment procedures for Cells, including a way to deploy, manage, migrate, -and monitor. +We will run many Cells. +To manage them easier, we need to have consistent deployment procedures for Cells, including a way to deploy, manage, migrate, and monitor. -We are very likely to use tooling made for [GitLab Dedicated](https://about.gitlab.com/dedicated/) -with its control planes. +We are very likely to use tooling made for [GitLab Dedicated](https://about.gitlab.com/dedicated/) with its control planes. 1. **Extend GitLab Dedicated to support GCP.** 1. TBD ### 6. Migration -When we reach production and are able to store new organizations on new Cells, we need -to be able to divide big Cells into many smaller ones. +When we reach production and are able to store new Organizations on new Cells, we need to be able to divide big Cells into many smaller ones. 1. **Use GitLab Geo to clone Cells.** @@ -220,14 +198,13 @@ to be able to divide big Cells into many smaller ones. 1. **Split Cells by cloning them.** - Once Cell is cloned we change routing information for organizations. - Organization will encode `cell_id`. When we update `cell_id` it will automatically - make the given Cell to be authoritative to handle the traffic for the given organization. + Once a Cell is cloned we change the routing information for Organizations. + Organizations will encode a `cell_id`. + When we update the `cell_id` it will automatically make the given Cell authoritative to handle traffic for the given Organization. 1. **Delete redundant data from previous Cells.** - Since the organization is now stored on many Cells, once we change `cell_id` - we will have to remove data from all other Cells based on `organization_id`. + Since the Organization is now stored on many Cells, once we change `cell_id` we will have to remove data from all other Cells based on `organization_id`. ## Availability of the feature @@ -237,11 +214,10 @@ We are following the [Support for Experiment, Beta, and Generally Available feat Expectations: -- We can deploy a Cell on staging or another testing environment by using a separate domain (ex. `cell2.staging.gitlab.com`) - using [Cell deployment](#5-cell-deployment) tooling. -- User can create organization, group and project, and run some of the [essential workflows](#2-essential-workflows). +- We can deploy a Cell on staging or another testing environment by using a separate domain (for example `cell2.staging.gitlab.com`) using [Cell deployment](#5-cell-deployment) tooling. +- User can create Organization, Group and Project, and run some of the [essential workflows](#2-essential-workflows). - It is not expected to be able to run a router to serve all requests under a single domain. -- We expect data-loss of data stored on additional Cells. +- We expect data loss of data stored on additional Cells. - We expect to tear down and create many new Cells to validate tooling. ### 2. Beta @@ -250,7 +226,7 @@ Expectations: - We can run many Cells under a single domain (ex. `staging.gitlab.com`). - All features defined in [essential workflows](#2-essential-workflows) are supported. -- Not all aspects of [Routing layer](#4-routing-layer) are finalized. +- Not all aspects of the [routing layer](#4-routing-layer) are finalized. - We expect additional Cells to be stable with minimal data loss. ### 3. GA @@ -259,119 +235,137 @@ Expectations: - We can run many Cells under a single domain (for example, `staging.gitlab.com`). - All features defined in [essential workflows](#2-essential-workflows) are supported. -- All features of [routing layer](#4-routing-layer) are supported. -- Most of [additional workflows](#3-additional-workflows) are supported. -- We don't expect to support any of [migration](#6-migration) aspects. +- All features of the [routing layer](#4-routing-layer) are supported. +- Most of the [additional workflows](#3-additional-workflows) are supported. +- We don't expect to support any of the [migration](#6-migration) aspects. ### 4. Post GA Expectations: - We support all [additional workflows](#3-additional-workflows). -- We can [migrate](#6-migration) existing organizations onto new Cells. +- We can [migrate](#6-migration) existing Organizations onto new Cells. ## Iteration plan -The delivered iterations will focus on solving particular steps of a given -key work stream. - -It is expected that initial iterations will rather -be slow, because they require substantially more -changes to prepare the codebase for data split. +The delivered iterations will focus on solving particular steps of a given key work stream. +It is expected that initial iterations will be rather slow, because they require substantially more changes to prepare the codebase for data split. One iteration describes one quarter's worth of work. -1. [Iteration 1](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9667) - FY24Q1 +1. [Iteration 1](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9667) - FY24Q1 - Complete - Data access layer: Initial Admin Area settings are shared across cluster. - Essential workflows: Allow to share cluster-wide data with database-level data access layer -1. [Iteration 2](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9813) - FY24Q2 +1. [Iteration 2](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/9813) - FY24Q2 - In progress - Essential workflows: User accounts are shared across cluster. - - Essential workflows: User can create group. + - Essential workflows: User can create Group. -1. [Iteration 3](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10997) - FY24Q3 +1. [Iteration 3](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10997) - FY24Q3 - Planned - - Essential workflows: User can create project. - - Essential workflows: User can push to Git repository. - - Cell deployment: Extend GitLab Dedicated to support GCP + - Essential workflows: User can create Project. - Routing: Technology. + - Data access layer: Evaluate the efficiency of database-level access vs. API-oriented access layer 1. [Iteration 4](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/10998) - FY24Q4 - - Essential workflows: User can run CI pipeline. + - Essential workflows: User can push to Git repository. - Essential workflows: User can create issue, merge request, and merge it after it is green. - - Data access layer: Evaluate the efficiency of database-level access vs. API-oriented access layer - Data access layer: Cluster-unique identifiers. - Routing: Cell discovery. - Routing: Router endpoints classification. + - Cell deployment: Extend GitLab Dedicated to support GCP 1. Iteration 5 - FY25Q1 + - Essential workflows: User can run CI pipeline. + - Essential workflows: Instance-wide settings are shared across cluster. + - Essential workflows: User can change profile avatar that is shared in cluster. + - Essential workflows: User can create issue, merge request, and merge it after it is green. + - Essential workflows: User can manage Group and Project members. + - Essential workflows: User can manage instance-wide runners. + - Essential workflows: User is part of Organization and can only see information from the Organization. + - Routing: GraphQL and other ambiguous endpoints. + - Data access layer: Allow to share cluster-wide data with database-level data access layer. + - Data access layer: Cluster-wide deletions. + - Data access layer: Data access layer. + - Data access layer: Database migrations. + +1. Iteration 6 - FY25Q2 + - TBD + +1. Iteration 7 - FY25Q3 + - TBD + +1. Iteration 8 - FY25Q4 - TBD ## Technical Proposals -The Cells architecture do have long lasting implications to data processing, location, scalability and the GitLab architecture. +The Cells architecture has long lasting implications to data processing, location, scalability and the GitLab architecture. This section links all different technical proposals that are being evaluated. - [Stateless Router That Uses a Cache to Pick Cell and Is Redirected When Wrong Cell Is Reached](proposal-stateless-router-with-buffering-requests.md) - - [Stateless Router That Uses a Cache to Pick Cell and pre-flight `/api/v4/cells/learn`](proposal-stateless-router-with-routes-learning.md) ## Impacted features The Cells architecture will impact many features requiring some of them to be rewritten, or changed significantly. -This is the list of known affected features with the proposed solutions. +Below is a list of known affected features with preliminary proposed solutions. -- [Cells: Git Access](cells-feature-git-access.md) -- [Cells: Data Migration](cells-feature-data-migration.md) -- [Cells: Database Sequences](cells-feature-database-sequences.md) -- [Cells: GraphQL](cells-feature-graphql.md) -- [Cells: Organizations](cells-feature-organizations.md) -- [Cells: Router Endpoints Classification](cells-feature-router-endpoints-classification.md) -- [Cells: Schema changes (Postgres and Elasticsearch migrations)](cells-feature-schema-changes.md) +- [Cells: Admin Area](cells-feature-admin-area.md) - [Cells: Backups](cells-feature-backups.md) -- [Cells: Global Search](cells-feature-global-search.md) - [Cells: CI Runners](cells-feature-ci-runners.md) -- [Cells: Admin Area](cells-feature-admin-area.md) -- [Cells: Secrets](cells-feature-secrets.md) - [Cells: Container Registry](cells-feature-container-registry.md) - [Cells: Contributions: Forks](cells-feature-contributions-forks.md) -- [Cells: Personal Namespaces](cells-feature-personal-namespaces.md) -- [Cells: Dashboard: Projects, Todos, Issues, Merge Requests, Activity, ...](cells-feature-dashboard.md) +- [Cells: Database Sequences](cells-feature-database-sequences.md) +- [Cells: Data Migration](cells-feature-data-migration.md) +- [Cells: Explore](cells-feature-explore.md) +- [Cells: Git Access](cells-feature-git-access.md) +- [Cells: Global Search](cells-feature-global-search.md) +- [Cells: GraphQL](cells-feature-graphql.md) +- [Cells: Organizations](cells-feature-organizations.md) +- [Cells: Secrets](cells-feature-secrets.md) - [Cells: Snippets](cells-feature-snippets.md) -- [Cells: Uploads](cells-feature-uploads.md) -- [Cells: GitLab Pages](cells-feature-gitlab-pages.md) +- [Cells: User Profile](cells-feature-user-profile.md) +- [Cells: Your Work](cells-feature-your-work.md) + +### Impacted features: Placeholders + +The following list of impacted features only represents placeholders that still require work to estimate the impact of Cells and develop solution proposals. + - [Cells: Agent for Kubernetes](cells-feature-agent-for-kubernetes.md) +- [Cells: GitLab Pages](cells-feature-gitlab-pages.md) +- [Cells: Personal Access Tokens](cells-feature-personal-access-tokens.md) +- [Cells: Personal Namespaces](cells-feature-personal-namespaces.md) +- [Cells: Router Endpoints Classification](cells-feature-router-endpoints-classification.md) +- [Cells: Schema changes (Postgres and Elasticsearch migrations)](cells-feature-schema-changes.md) +- [Cells: Uploads](cells-feature-uploads.md) +- ... ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What's the difference between Cells architecture and GitLab Dedicated? -The new Cells architecture is meant to scale GitLab.com. And the way to achieve this is by moving -organizations into cells, but different organizations can still share each other server resources, even -if the application provides isolation from other organizations. But all of them still operate under the -existing GitLab SaaS domain name `gitlab.com`. Also, cells still share some common data, like `users`, and -routing information of groups and projects. For example, no two users can have the same username -even if they belong to different organizations that exist on different cells. +The new Cells architecture is meant to scale GitLab.com. +The way to achieve this is by moving Organizations into Cells, but different Organizations can still share server resources, even if the application provides isolation from other Organizations. +But all of them still operate under the existing GitLab SaaS domain name `gitlab.com`. +Also, Cells still share some common data, like `users`, and routing information of Groups and Projects. +For example, no two users can have the same username even if they belong to different Organizations that exist on different Cells. -With the aforementioned differences, GitLab Dedicated is still offered at higher costs due to the fact -that it's provisioned via dedicated server resources for each customer, while Cells use shared resources. Which -makes GitLab Dedicated more suited for bigger customers, and GitLab Cells more suitable for small to mid size -companies that are starting on GitLab.com. +With the aforementioned differences, [GitLab Dedicated](https://about.gitlab.com/dedicated/) is still offered at higher costs due to the fact that it's provisioned via dedicated server resources for each customer, while Cells use shared resources. +This makes GitLab Dedicated more suited for bigger customers, and GitLab Cells more suitable for small to mid-size companies that are starting on GitLab.com. -On the other hand, [GitLab Dedicated](https://about.gitlab.com/dedicated/) is meant to provide completely -isolated GitLab instance for any organization. Where this instance is running on its own custom domain name, and -totally isolated from any other GitLab instance, including GitLab SaaS. For example, users on GitLab dedicated -don't have to have a different and unique username that was already taken on GitLab.com. +On the other hand, GitLab Dedicated is meant to provide a completely isolated GitLab instance for any Organization. +This instance is running on its own custom domain name, and is totally isolated from any other GitLab instance, including GitLab SaaS. +For example, users on GitLab Dedicated don't have to have a different and unique username that was already taken on GitLab.com. -### Can different cells communicate with each other? +### Can different Cells communicate with each other? -Up until iteration 3, cells communicate with each other only via a shared database that contains common -data. In iteration 4 we are going to evaluate the option of cells calling each other via API to provide more -isolation and reliability. +Up until iteration 3, Cells communicate with each other only via a shared database that contains common data. +In iteration 4 we are going to evaluate the option of Cells calling each other via API to provide more isolation and reliability. ## Decision log @@ -380,8 +374,7 @@ isolation and reliability. ## Links - [Internal Pods presentation](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1x1uIiN8FR9fhL7pzFh9juHOVcSxEY7d2_q4uiKKGD44/edit#slide=id.ge7acbdc97a_0_155) -- [Internal link to all diagrams](https://drive.google.com/file/d/13NHzbTrmhUM-z_Bf0RjatUEGw5jWHSLt/view?usp=sharing) - [Cells Epic](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/epics/7582) -- [Database Group investigation](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/enablement/data_stores/database/doc/root-namespace-sharding.html) +- [Database group investigation](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/development/enablement/data_stores/database/doc/root-namespace-sharding.html) - [Shopify Pods architecture](https://shopify.engineering/a-pods-architecture-to-allow-shopify-to-scale) - [Opstrace architecture](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/opstrace/opstrace/-/blob/main/docs/architecture/overview.md) |
