1. Tables related to User data (including profile settings, authentication credentials, personal access tokens) are decomposed into a `gitlab_users` schema
1. The `routes` table is decomposed into `gitlab_routes` schema
1. The `application_settings` (and probably a few other instance level tables) are decomposed into `gitlab_admin` schema
1. A new column `routes.pod_id` is added to `routes` table
1. A new Router service exists to choose which pod to route a request to.
1. If a router receives a new request it will send `/api/v4/pods/learn?method=GET&path_info=/group-org/project` to learn which Pod can process it
1. A new concept will be introduced in GitLab called an organization
1. We require all existing endpoints to be routable by URI, or be fixed to a specific Pod for processing. This requires changing ambiguous endpoints like `/dashboard` to be scoped like `/organizations/my-organization/-/dashboard`
1. Endpoints like `/admin` would be routed always to the specific Pod, like `pod_0`
1. Each Pod can respond to `/api/v4/pods/learn` and classify each endpoint
1. Writes to `gitlab_users` and `gitlab_routes` are sent to a primary PostgreSQL server in our `US` region but reads can come from replicas in the same region. This will add latency for these writes but we expect they are infrequent relative to the rest of GitLab.
## Pre-flight request learning
While processing a request the URI will be decoded and a pre-flight request
will be sent for each non-cached endpoint.
When asking for the endpoint GitLab Rails will return information about
the routable path. GitLab Rails will decode `path_info` and match it to
an existing endpoint and find a routable entity (like project). The router will
1. Some endpoints might require an exact match: `/api/v4/pods/learn?method=GET&path_info=/-/profile`
```json
{
"path": "/-/profile",
"pod": "pod_0",
"source": "fixed",
"exact": true
}
```
## Detailed explanation of default organization in the first iteration
All users will get a new column `users.default_organization` which they can
control in user settings. We will introduce a concept of the
`GitLab.com Public` organization. This will be set as the default organization for all existing
users. This organization will allow the user to see data from all namespaces in
`Pod US0` (ie. our original GitLab.com instance). This behavior can be invisible to
existing users such that they don't even get told when they are viewing a
global page like `/dashboard` that it's even scoped to an organization.
Any new users with a default organization other than `GitLab.com Public` will have
a distinct user experience and will be fully aware that every page they load is
only ever scoped to a single organization. These users can never
load any global pages like `/dashboard` and will end up being redirected to
`/organizations/<DEFAULT_ORGANIZATION>/-/dashboard`. This may also be the case
for legacy APIs and such users may only ever be able to use APIs scoped to a
organization.
## Detailed explanation of Admin Area settings
We believe that maintaining and synchronizing Admin Area settings will be
frustrating and painful so to avoid this we will decompose and share all Admin Area
settings in the `gitlab_admin` schema. This should be safe (similar to other
shared schemas) because these receive very little write traffic.
In cases where different pods need different settings (eg. the
Elasticsearch URL), we will either decide to use a templated
format in the relevant `application_settings` row which allows it to be dynamic
per pod. Alternatively if that proves difficult we'll introduce a new table
called `per_pod_application_settings` and this will have 1 row per pod to allow
setting different settings per pod. It will still be part of the `gitlab_admin`
schema and shared which will allow us to centrally manage it and simplify
keeping settings in sync for all pods.
## Pros
1. Router is stateless and can live in many regions. We use Anycast DNS to resolve to nearest region for the user.
1. Pods can receive requests for namespaces in the wrong pod and the user
still gets the right response as well as caching at the router that
ensures the next request is sent to the correct pod so the next request
will go to the correct pod
1. The majority of the code still lives in `gitlab` rails codebase. The Router doesn't actually need to understand how GitLab URLs are composed.
1. Since the responsibility to read and write `gitlab_users`,
`gitlab_routes` and `gitlab_admin` still lives in Rails it means minimal
changes will be needed to the Rails application compared to extracting
services that need to isolate the domain models and build new interfaces.
1. Compared to a separate routing service this allows the Rails application
to encode more complex rules around how to map URLs to the correct pod
and may work for some existing API endpoints.
1. All the new infrastructure (just a router) is optional and a single-pod
self-managed installation does not even need to run the Router and there are
no other new services.
## Cons
1.`gitlab_users`, `gitlab_routes` and `gitlab_admin` databases may need to be
replicated across regions and writes need to go across regions. We need to
do an analysis on write TPS for the relevant tables to determine if this is
feasible.
1. Sharing access to the database from many different Pods means that they are
all coupled at the Postgres schema level and this means changes to the
database schema need to be done carefully in sync with the deployment of all
Pods. This limits us to ensure that Pods are kept in closely similar
versions compared to an architecture with shared services that have an API
we control.
1. Although most data is stored in the right region there can be requests
proxied from another region which may be an issue for certain types
of compliance.
1. Data in `gitlab_users` and `gitlab_routes` databases must be replicated in
all regions which may be an issue for certain types of compliance.
1. The router cache may need to be very large if we get a wide variety of URLs
(ie. long tail). In such a case we may need to implement a 2nd level of
caching in user cookies so their frequently accessed pages always go to the
right pod the first time.
1. Having shared database access for `gitlab_users` and `gitlab_routes`
from multiple pods is an unusual architecture decision compared to
extracting services that are called from multiple pods.
1. It is very likely we won't be able to find cacheable elements of a
GraphQL URL and often existing GraphQL endpoints are heavily dependent on
ids that won't be in the `routes` table so pods won't necessarily know
what pod has the data. As such we'll probably have to update our GraphQL
calls to include an organization context in the path like
`/api/organizations/<organization>/graphql`.
1. This architecture implies that implemented endpoints can only access data
that are readily accessible on a given Pod, but are unlikely
to aggregate information from many Pods.
1. All unknown routes are sent to the latest deployment which we assume to be `Pod US0`.
This is required as newly added endpoints will be only decodable by latest pod.
Likely this is not a problem for the `/pods/learn` is it is lightweight
to process and this should not cause a performance impact.
## Example database configuration
Handling shared `gitlab_users`, `gitlab_routes` and `gitlab_admin` databases, while having dedicated `gitlab_main` and `gitlab_ci` databases should already be handled by the way we use `config/database.yml`. We should also, already be able to handle the dedicated EU replicas while having a single US primary for `gitlab_users` and `gitlab_routes`. Below is a snippet of part of the database configuration for the Pod architecture described above.
**Pod US0**:
```yaml
# config/database.yml
production:
main:
host: postgres-main.pod-us0.primary.consul
load_balancing:
discovery: postgres-main.pod-us0.replicas.consul
ci:
host: postgres-ci.pod-us0.primary.consul
load_balancing:
discovery: postgres-ci.pod-us0.replicas.consul
users:
host: postgres-users-primary.consul
load_balancing:
discovery: postgres-users-replicas.us.consul
routes:
host: postgres-routes-primary.consul
load_balancing:
discovery: postgres-routes-replicas.us.consul
admin:
host: postgres-admin-primary.consul
load_balancing:
discovery: postgres-admin-replicas.us.consul
```
**Pod EU0**:
```yaml
# config/database.yml
production:
main:
host: postgres-main.pod-eu0.primary.consul
load_balancing:
discovery: postgres-main.pod-eu0.replicas.consul
ci:
host: postgres-ci.pod-eu0.primary.consul
load_balancing:
discovery: postgres-ci.pod-eu0.replicas.consul
users:
host: postgres-users-primary.consul
load_balancing:
discovery: postgres-users-replicas.eu.consul
routes:
host: postgres-routes-primary.consul
load_balancing:
discovery: postgres-routes-replicas.eu.consul
admin:
host: postgres-admin-primary.consul
load_balancing:
discovery: postgres-admin-replicas.eu.consul
```
## Request flows
1.`gitlab-org` is a top level namespace and lives in `Pod US0` in the `GitLab.com Public` organization
1.`my-company` is a top level namespace and lives in `Pod EU0` in the `my-organization` organization
### Experience for paying user that is part of `my-organization`
Such a user will have a default organization set to `/my-organization` and will be
unable to load any global routes outside of this organization. They may load other
projects/namespaces but their MR/Todo/Issue counts at the top of the page will
not be correctly populated in the first iteration. The user will be aware of
this limitation.
#### Navigates to `/my-company/my-project` while logged in
1. User is in Europe so DNS resolves to the router in Europe
1. They request `/my-company/my-project` without the router cache, so the router chooses randomly `Pod EU1`
1. The `/pods/learn` is sent to `Pod EU1`, which responds that resource lives on `Pod EU0`
1.`Pod EU0` returns the correct response
1. The router now caches and remembers any request paths matching `/my-company/*` should go to `Pod EU0`
#### Navigates to `/my-company/my-other-project` while logged in (but they don't have access since this project is private)
They get a 404.
### Experience for non-logged in users
Flow is similar to logged in users except global routes like `/dashboard` will
redirect to the login page as there is no default organization to choose from.
### A new customers signs up
They will be asked if they are already part of an organization or if they'd
like to create one. If they choose neither they end up no the default
`GitLab.com Public` organization.
### An organization is moved from 1 pod to another
TODO
### GraphQL/API requests which don't include the namespace in the URL
TODO
### The autocomplete suggestion functionality in the search bar which remembers recent issues/MRs
TODO
### Global search
TODO
## Administrator
### Loads `/admin` page
1. The `/admin` is locked to `Pod US0`
1. Some endpoints of `/admin`, like Projects in Admin are scoped to a Pod
and users needs to choose the correct one in a dropdown, which results in endpoint
like `/admin/pods/pod_0/projects`.
Admin Area settings in Postgres are all shared across all pods to avoid
divergence but we still make it clear in the URL and UI which pod is serving
the Admin Area page as there is dynamic data being generated from these pages and
the operator may want to view a specific pod.
## More Technical Problems To Solve
### Replicating User Sessions Between All Pods
Today user sessions live in Redis but each pod will have their own Redis instance. We already use a dedicated Redis instance for sessions so we could consider sharing this with all pods like we do with `gitlab_users` PostgreSQL database. But an important consideration will be latency as we would still want to mostly fetch sessions from the same region.
An alternative might be that user sessions get moved to a JWT payload that encodes all the session data but this has downsides. For example, it is difficult to expire a user session, when their password changes or for other reasons, if the session lives in a JWT controlled by the user.
### How do we migrate between Pods
Migrating data between pods will need to factor all data stores:
1. PostgreSQL
1. Redis Shared State
1. Gitaly
1. Elasticsearch
### Is it still possible to leak the existence of private groups via a timing attack?
If you have router in EU, and you know that EU router by default redirects
returned by US Pod and know that your 404 is in fact 403.
We may defer this until we actually implement a pod in a different region. Such timing attacks are already theoretically possible with the way we do permission checks today but the timing difference is probably too small to be able to detect.
One technique to mitigate this risk might be to have the router add a random
delay to any request that returns 404 from a pod.
## Should runners be shared across all pods?
We have 2 options and we should decide which is easier:
1. Decompose runner registration and queuing tables and share them across all
pods. This may have implications for scalability, and we'd need to consider
if this would include group/project runners as this may have scalability
concerns as these are high traffic tables that would need to be shared.
1. Runners are registered per-pod and, we probably have a separate fleet of
runners for every pod or just register the same runners to many pods which
may have implications for queueing
## How do we guarantee unique ids across all pods for things that cannot conflict?
This project assumes at least namespaces and projects have unique ids across
all pods as many requests need to be routed based on their ID. Since those
tables are across different databases then guaranteeing a unique ID will
require a new solution. There are likely other tables where unique IDs are
necessary and depending on how we resolve routing for GraphQL and other APIs
and other design goals it may be determined that we want the primary key to be
