Files
ottyl/ideas/0001-actor-split.md
T
2026-09-07 12:16:36 +01:00

297 lines
17 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# Idea: split the engine's single actor into a log-ingestion worker + per-profile worker(s)
## Original note
> This needs to be fleshed out with ai.
>
> The general idea is that the primary engine ingesting worker is
> doing too much. It should only parse logs to extract params.
>
> Since profiles carry additional (non-derived) params, metrics,
> dashboards, and panels - those should be stored separately and can
> be handled by a different worker. The worker would have read access
> to the primary log sequence and derived params index, but would
> construct it's own profile perspective. It has write access and
> then
>
> The profiles need to be informed of new messages to index.
>
> What if message needs to be different format? Thats per-profile.
>
> System param suppressions?
>
> Regex indexing? We probably want text indexing on the primary while
> also
>
> Values in the primary index should be arcs, to prevent cloning
> allocations.
## Current architecture (confirmed in code)
- **One process, one actor, today.** `spawn_engine`
(`src/cli/mod.rs:95`) calls `engine::spawn(...)` exactly once per
server run. `load_active_profile` (`src/cli/mod.rs:105-124`) loads
*one* active profile's param/metric declarations into that single
engine at startup, before ingest starts, with an explicit comment
explaining why: "there's no way to reprocess earlier lines later, so
this must happen before `spawn_ingest`" (`src/cli/mod.rs:104-106`).
All other `engine::spawn` call sites (`src/api/mod.rs:853,1459`,
several in `src/config/profile.rs`) are test harnesses, not a second
production engine instance.
- The actor loop is `run()`, `src/engine/handle.rs:130-365` — a single
`while let Some(message) = rx.recv().await` over one
`mpsc::Receiver<EngineMessage>` (`:141`). Every mutation (`Ingest`,
`IngestMetricSample`, `DeclareParam`/`RemoveParamDeclaration`,
`ClearParams`, `DeclareMetric`/`UpdateMetric`/
`RemoveMetricDeclaration`, `SetMaxLogs`, `EnsureSortHelperIndex`,
`Barrier` — full list `src/engine/message.rs:30-63`) funnels through
this one channel and one task.
- **Queries already bypass this actor.** `EngineQuery`
(`src/engine/message.rs:12-27`) doesn't go through the mpsc channel
— `EngineHandle::ask` reads directly off a `left_right`
`IndexReader`/`ReadHandle` (`src/engine/handle.rs:49-73`, entry point
`src/api/mod.rs:218-219`, evaluated by `handle_query_ro`,
`src/engine/snapshot/mod.rs:856-858`). So read-side scaling is
already decoupled from the actor loop today — this idea is entirely
about the **write/mutation** path.
- Per-line ingest (`EngineMessage::Ingest` arm,
`src/engine/handle.rs:143-219`) does, synchronously, in one
`left_right` write op, per line: ingest-lag/watermark bookkeeping,
log-stream header detection, storing the line as
`DataValue::LogLiteral`, auto-param detection
(`auto_declare_params`), running **every declared metric's regex**
against the line (`apply_all_metrics` →
`apply_metric_to_log`/`resolve_param_value`,
`src/engine/snapshot/mod.rs:409-460,821-851`), sort-helper-index
maintenance, log eviction, and then — after publish —
`alerts::evaluate_alerts` against the resulting snapshot
(`handle.rs:199-219`), which reads metric buckets that were just
computed in the same message.
- Module size: `src/engine/` is ~5.5k lines excluding tests (`snapshot/
mod.rs` alone is 1100 lines — the whole `EngineSnapshot` impl per its
own header comment).
- **No `Arc`, everywhere owned data.** The index is one flat
`BTreeMap<IndexKey, DataValue>` (`snapshot/mod.rs:43`) of owned
`String`s (`DataValue::LogLiteral { text: String }`,
`src/engine/data_value.rs:81`). Per ingested line, the raw text is
cloned at least twice for storage alone (`handle.rs:175,184-186`),
and every metric that matches the line clones its own copy of the
label/value strings it captures (`apply_metric_to_log`,
`mod.rs:426,439,444`) — with N metrics referencing overlapping
params, one line produces N independent owned-String allocations of
essentially the same substrings.
- **`left_right`'s reconciliation deep-clones everything.** After a
batch of writes, `left_right::Absorb::sync_with` clones the *entire*
`EngineSnapshot` (`*self = first.clone()`, `handle.rs:29-31`) to
reconcile the read-side copy — i.e. the "values should be Arc" note
isn't just about avoiding per-line clones, it's also about avoiding
a full-`BTreeMap`-of-Strings deep clone on every reconciliation.
- **No text/regex index exists.** `CompiledFilter::Regex(re) =>
re.is_match(text)` (`snapshot/filter.rs:159`) runs per line at query
time; `IndexKey` (`src/engine/index_key.rs:8-32`) has no
inverted/full-text structure. Every filter-bar query re-scans and
re-matches the whole retained range.
- **Backfill is a full synchronous history replay today, in the same
actor.** `declare_metric`/`update_metric`
(`snapshot/mod.rs:330-391`) → `backfill_metric` (`:481-509`) collects
**all** retained lines into a `Vec` and replays
`apply_metric_to_log` over every one, inside the single actor's
message handling — blocking ingest/alerts/other declarations for the
duration. `load_into_engine` (`src/config/profile.rs:332-384`) does
this once per metric, awaiting each response, so loading a profile
with N metrics against L retained lines costs O(N·L) synchronous
scan time. This is also the mechanism [[0004-profile-switch-reindexing-cost]]
describes for *runtime* profile switching via the `activate_profile`
API handler (`src/api/mod.rs:712-768`, which removes then
re-declares via the same messages) — worth reconciling that this
research pass separately characterized profile activation at
startup as one-shot ("no way to reprocess earlier lines later"),
while the earlier research for ticket 099/idea 0004 confirmed a
*runtime* reload path exists via `activate_profile`. Both are true:
startup load is one-shot by necessity (ingest hasn't started yet),
and the runtime reload path reuses the same declare/backfill
machinery after the fact — but this is worth double-checking before
design work starts, since the two research passes framed it
differently.
- **Alerts are coupled to the single actor's local state.** Alert
evaluation runs directly in the ingest arm against the just-mutated
snapshot (`handle.rs:199-211`, `alerts::evaluate_alerts`,
`src/engine/alerts.rs:211`), reading `alert_states:
HashMap<String, AlertRuntimeState>` that lives on the single actor
task's own stack frame (`handle.rs:137`) — there's no mechanism today
for one actor to read another actor's in-memory state.
- **Existing multi-task precedent is producer-side only.**
`src/engine/ingest.rs`'s stdin/file-tailing and Prometheus-polling
tasks each hold a cloned `EngineHandle` and push into the *same*
actor's mpsc channel (spawned at `src/cli/mod.rs:136-145`) — a
plausible pattern for "many producers, one consumer," but there's no
existing precedent for multiple *consuming* actors each owning their
own `left_right` write side that need to stay coherent with each
other or with a shared upstream.
## Implications and things to consider
### Performance
- The stated goal — "the primary worker should only parse logs to
extract params" — would remove per-line metric-regex evaluation
(`apply_all_metrics`) from the primary's critical path, which is
real work today (N metrics × regex match per line). That's a
genuine win *if* profile workers can consume the primary's output
without re-paying an equivalent cost themselves — but since a
profile worker still has to run its own metrics' regexes against
each line to build its own buckets, the total CPU work done across
the process doesn't shrink; what changes is that it's no longer all
serialized on one task, so it can run concurrently with the primary
(a real win on a multi-core box) and a slow/backfilling profile
worker no longer blocks raw ingestion.
- The "values in the primary index should be Arcs" change is
independently valuable regardless of whether the actor split
happens — it directly addresses the confirmed double/triple string
cloning per line (storage clone + per-metric label/value clones) and
the full-snapshot deep-clone on every `left_right` reconciliation.
Worth sequencing as a prerequisite: switching to `Arc<str>` (or
`Arc<String>`) for stored text means a profile worker reading "the
primary log sequence" can cheaply hold references to the same
underlying bytes instead of needing its own copies — this is likely
a load-bearing precondition for the split being worth it at all, not
a nice-to-have alongside it.
- A profile worker needing "read access to the primary log sequence
and derived params index" implies either (a) a second `left_right`
reader over the primary's structures (cheap, if values are Arc'd —
see above) or (b) a message-replay feed (the primary notifies
profile workers of new lines, per the note's "profiles need to be
informed of new messages to index"). Option (b) reintroduces a
second data copy per profile worker unless the message itself only
carries an `Arc`/index reference rather than owned data — otherwise
this recreates the same N-copies-per-line problem this idea is
trying to remove, just distributed across processes/tasks instead of
within one.
- Backfill cost (O(N metrics × L retained lines), see [[0004-profile-switch-reindexing-cost]])
doesn't disappear with a split — it moves to whichever worker owns
the profile. The upside is it no longer blocks the *primary's*
ingest/query-serving while it happens, which is the main perf
argument for doing this at all, per that idea's "Performance"
section.
- Full-text/regex indexing on the primary (per the note's "Regex
indexing?") is a materially different performance investment from
the Arc/split work — an inverted or trigram index trades ingest-time
CPU and memory for query-time speed on filter-bar searches, and is
worth scoping as its own effort (see [[0005-additional-read-indexes]])
rather than folded into this split, since it doesn't depend on the
actor topology.
### Code structure
- This is the single largest structural change on the idea list —
`src/engine/` (~5.5k lines) currently assumes one writer owning one
`left_right` pair. Splitting introduces: a defined "primary
perspective" (raw logs + derived/auto params only, no
profile-specific metrics) as its own bounded module, a
"profile perspective" abstraction that can be instantiated per
active profile, a notification/subscription mechanism from primary
to profile workers (the note's "profiles need to be informed of new
messages to index" — doesn't exist in any form today; the closest
analogue, `ingest.rs`'s producer tasks feeding one consumer, runs the
opposite direction), and a query-fan-out/merge layer for any request
that needs both raw logs and profile-derived data in one response
(today `Logs`/`Timeline` queries read both from a single
`EngineSnapshot` in one pass, e.g. `query.rs:154`'s
`log_entry_params` call against `compiled_params` from the same
snapshot — splitting the data sources means this becomes a real join
across two snapshots/workers instead of one borrow).
- Alert evaluation (`handle.rs:199-211`) currently depends on running
immediately after metric bucketing in the same message, against the
same snapshot. If metrics move to per-profile workers, alerts need to
either move with them (probably correct, since alert rules are
profile-scoped conceptually) or gain a defined way to read
cross-worker metric state that doesn't exist today.
- `EngineHandle`'s current API (`handle.rs:49-73` for reads,
the mpsc `EngineMessage` send for writes) would need to become two
APIs, or one handle type parameterized by "primary" vs. "profile" —
worth deciding whether `api.rs`'s handlers (which currently hold one
`EngineHandle` in `ApiState`) address a single combined handle that
internally fans out, or explicitly juggle a primary handle plus an
active-profile handle.
- Given `CLAUDE.md`'s existing note that `engine.rs` is "the file to
read first" and already the largest/highest-churn file in the repo
(13 commits/90d per the repowise summary), this split is also a
legibility opportunity, not just a performance one — today a reader
has to understand ingest, metrics, alerts, and backfill as one
intertwined concern to understand any one of them.
### Functionality
- **Per-profile message format** (the note's "What if message needs to
be different format? Thats per-profile.") — today, log-stream header
detection and logfmt/JSON auto-param extraction happen once, in the
primary, against the raw line (`derive_log_stream_params_from_row`,
`auto_declare_params`, both in the current `Ingest` arm). If
different profiles can expect genuinely different message shapes
from the *same* piped process (unclear from the note whether this
means "different profiles parse the same stream differently" or
"each profile only ever sees its own stream"), that's a real design
fork: either the primary's parsing must become profile-aware (which
undercuts "primary only extracts params" as a clean, profile-agnostic
boundary), or each profile worker does its own message-format
parsing independently on top of the shared raw text — the latter fits
the stated architecture better but means format detection isn't a
primary-side concern at all, just param extraction of an
already-classified line is.
- **System param suppressions** (the note's fragment) is undeveloped —
unclear whether this means "some auto-derived params should never be
promoted to profile-visible params" (a filtering rule between primary
and profile perspectives) or "a way to suppress a param a profile
inherited but doesn't want" (a per-profile override). This needs a
sentence or two from you before it can be scoped at all; flagging
here rather than guessing.
- Multiple simultaneously-active profile workers (implied by "a
different worker" being per-profile, plural) raises a question the
current single-profile-at-a-time model never had to answer: can two
profiles be "active" and indexing concurrently, or is it still
strictly one active profile with the split only changing *how* that
one profile's data is computed relative to the primary? The
perf/functionality tradeoffs are very different depending on the
answer (concurrent multi-profile indexing multiplies the backfill
and per-line cost discussed above by the number of concurrently
active profiles).
### Not yet considered
- **Failure/restart semantics**: if a profile worker crashes or lags
behind the primary, what's the recovery story? Today there's one
actor with one failure mode (the whole engine). A split needs an
answer for "profile worker is behind — does it catch up from the
primary's retained history (bounded by the same retention limit the
primary enforces), or is data permanently lost for the gap?"
- **Retention/eviction coordination**: the primary already evicts old
logs (`evict_excess_logs`, `handle.rs:195`, `SetMaxLogs` message).
If a profile worker is reading "the primary log sequence" lazily or
asynchronously, eviction on the primary could remove a line before a
lagging profile worker has processed it — there's no coordination
primitive today (like a per-consumer low-water-mark) to prevent this
silently dropping data for a slow profile worker.
- **Testing story**: `src/engine/tests.rs` (2348 lines) and the
`test_handle` pattern (see ticket 099) are built entirely around one
actor with one channel — a split roughly doubles the kinds of
integration tests needed (primary alone, profile worker alone,
primary+profile interaction) and the existing test harness would
need real rework, not just extension.
- **Migration path**: this is a rewrite of the highest-risk, largest,
most-churned file in the codebase (per `CLAUDE.md`'s repowise
summary) — no plan yet for whether this ships as one big change or
incrementally (e.g. Arc-ing values first as an independent,
lower-risk step; then extracting metric computation into a
separately-callable-but-still-single-actor stage; then finally
splitting into separate tasks) — given the size, an incremental path
is very likely necessary rather than optional.
- **Whether this is worth it at all without profiling evidence**: per
this project's own established norm (tickets 079/080 were removed
for "no profiling evidence to justify the fix"), this is a large
structural bet motivated by the note's stated concern ("primary
worker is doing too much") rather than a measured bottleneck — worth
a `samply` profile of realistic ingest load *before* committing to
this, to confirm metric-bucketing-on-the-primary is actually a
measurable cost relative to param extraction, storage, and alert
evaluation, rather than assuming it from code-reading alone.