Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

HPCC-31171 Encrypt on worker threads rather than UDP send thread #18249

Merged

Conversation

richardkchapman
Copy link
Member

Type of change:

  • This change is a bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue).
  • This change is a new feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality).
  • This change improves the code (refactor or other change that does not change the functionality)
  • This change fixes warnings (the fix does not alter the functionality or the generated code)
  • This change is a breaking change (fix or feature that will cause existing behavior to change).
  • This change alters the query API (existing queries will have to be recompiled)

Checklist:

  • My code follows the code style of this project.
    • My code does not create any new warnings from compiler, build system, or lint.
  • The commit message is properly formatted and free of typos.
    • The commit message title makes sense in a changelog, by itself.
    • The commit is signed.
  • My change requires a change to the documentation.
    • I have updated the documentation accordingly, or...
    • I have created a JIRA ticket to update the documentation.
    • Any new interfaces or exported functions are appropriately commented.
  • I have read the CONTRIBUTORS document.
  • The change has been fully tested:
    • I have added tests to cover my changes.
    • All new and existing tests passed.
    • I have checked that this change does not introduce memory leaks.
    • I have used Valgrind or similar tools to check for potential issues.
  • I have given due consideration to all of the following potential concerns:
    • Scalability
    • Performance
    • Security
    • Thread-safety
    • Cloud-compatibility
    • Premature optimization
    • Existing deployed queries will not be broken
    • This change fixes the problem, not just the symptom
    • The target branch of this pull request is appropriate for such a change.
  • There are no similar instances of the same problem that should be addressed
    • I have addressed them here
    • I have raised JIRA issues to address them separately
  • This is a user interface / front-end modification
    • I have tested my changes in multiple modern browsers
    • The component(s) render as expected

Smoketest:

  • Send notifications about my Pull Request position in Smoketest queue.
  • Test my draft Pull Request.

Testing:

Using udpsim

Copy link

Copy link
Member

@ghalliday ghalliday left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Change looks good.
It is hard to know which way to default the option. I suspect on a lightly loaded system this may reduce performance slightly - because aes encryption will no longer be executed in parallel with the code to walk the indexes. On a heavily loaded system I suspect it will help because once the udp transport layer becomes the bottleneck, anything that speeds up the rate packets are sent is likely to help.

Copy link
Contributor

@mckellyln mckellyln left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think it makes sense, looks good to merge.

@richardkchapman
Copy link
Member Author

On a lightly loaded system, there will be other worker threads available for walking the indexes when the AES encryption is happening. I would have thought

@ghalliday
Copy link
Member

I think it is a good idea. My concern is changing the way it works on a point release. I wonder about defaulting it to remain the same for 9.4.x, but encourage business units to test enabling the option and look its effect on performance.

@richardkchapman @mckellyln

What are your votes for merging this?

@mckellyln
Copy link
Contributor

We could merge it, but leave default as-is and do some testing and change default in a future release ?
I would learn towards defaulting it on (the new method) and if there is some noticeable diff in the near term then we can disable via config.

@richardkchapman
Copy link
Member Author

Feels like a smaller change than many others that have gone into the 9.4 series. I don't really mind either way but if we choose to default off in 9.4.x then we need to also release a change to change the default in master, or else it will become yet another unused option...

(Also, if we change the default at a major release rather than a minor one, it will be much harder for us to spot any negative impact - not that I think a negative impact is likely)

@ghalliday ghalliday merged commit 88ee51a into hpcc-systems:candidate-9.4.x Feb 28, 2024
91 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants