-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 456
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
Remove event.ingested
processor from ingest pipelines
#4462
Comments
I want to take this as a chance to take a step back. Why do we need Both of the above are not package related but "centralised" concers. Also the addition of the data can only happen centrally. Based on this, I agree with not adding it to every package and have this as part of our docs. As it is a centralised concern, who should be in control of it? Is it a global setting, is it per package or per data stream? One thing to consider is that timestamps in general have quite a bit of overhead as these cannot be compressed well (@jpountz might have here some more details). Few questions that come to mind:
@gsantoro If nobody objects, it seems we can move forward with your suggestions but I would like to keep this open to have a follow up discussions on the long term of |
I also am curious as to what we are using event.ingested for? It does seem useful for diagnostic reasons; it is interesting when there is a large lag between event creation and delivery. This may affect the efficacy of the SIEM as it is time window bound. May also demonstrate a clock skew issue. However, does it necessarily have to be mapped? If it is not mapped, then the compression overhead concerns go away. We do still have pipeline overhead concerns. |
@gsantoro Is there any follow up issue or PR for your action points to track the progress? @joshdover Pinging you on this one for awareness as |
Hello @ruflin , I assume that if we agree to remove event.ingested from all the ingest pipeline, this would not happen in a single PR but would probably involve multiple teams according to the CODEOWNERS responsibilities. |
These are the use cases that I am aware of.
Footnotes
|
No. I have used it in the past to calculate ingestion delay, but that was a one-off exercise, not something that is visualised in the product. |
The way I read the above comments, there are specific features which need
My current take is, we need to continue the discussion around this feature but with a more holistic view as part of ingest and is not tied to any of the integrations. Because of this, I'm closing this issue but I think we need a separate issue for further discussion. @gsantoro @tommyers-elastic Can we ensure that the decision not adding |
A check to disallow adding |
@jsoriano Yes. Or in a way that someone could still overwrite it but has to set a flag. But we can do that if it is actually needed. |
As part of a PR it has been brought to my attention that we shouldn't add event.ingested to ingest pipelines since that field is already added by a default fleet pipeline.
According to @andrewkroh here and here, we shouldn't add the field
event.ingested
in individual integrations since this fleet pipeline runs both in managed and standalone mode.I would like to use this issue to agree on this topic and create some action points like:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: