# Multi-tenancy and multiple routing values **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [January 11, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/multi-tenancy-and-multiple-routing-values/10317 "2013-01-11T16:19:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![polyfractal](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/polyfractal/32/48162_2.png) [@polyfractal](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/polyfractal)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/multi-tenancy-and-multiple-routing-values/10317/1 "2013-01-11T16:19:20Z")
So I'm noodling around and trying to determine the best way to setup a multi-user ES cluster such that each user is an administrator to a portion of the ES cluster. Each administrator could theoretically have their own multi-tenant setup, where their index is routed via the users in their index, etc. My first thought was create an index for each administrator, which allows them to have full range of routing configuration. However, this doesn't scale past a few thousand indicies because of the lucene overhead (unless I want to keep throwing hardware at the problem). I could spin up entirely new clusters when the index ceiling is reached, although this may get tricky managing multiple clusters. I could implement a "User dataflow" system with routing, such as described by Shay in his Berlin Buzzwords presentation. Each document indexed to a particular administrator is assigned an admin\_id property, and all subsequent searches are filtered/aliased/routed on that field. However, this means that the administrator is unable to use routing themselves (say, if they need to implement "user dataflow" themselves). Is there a way to setup routed-routing? Something like: - Admin\_id = 5 routes to shards 1,2,3,4 - User\_id = 100 routes to shard 3, User\_id = 200 routes to shard 1, etc - Admin\_id = 6 routes to shards 5,6,7,8 - Widget\_id = 10 routes to shard 5, Widget\_id = 20 routes to shard 7, etc Alternatively, I could simply disable routing and say "tough luck", but it is such a powerful performance reason I would hate to disable it. At this point, I think the best solution is to spin up entirely new ES clusters when the index ceiling is reached. Thanks! -Zach -- ---
**Author:** ![jprante](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/jprante/32/44941_2.png) [@jprante](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/jprante)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2013, 10:21am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/multi-tenancy-and-multiple-routing-values/10317/2 "2013-01-13T10:21:34Z")
Unless the admins require to share data among them and you have enough nodes, why not just deploy a cluster per admin? What I understand from Shay's Berlin Buzz, the user dataflow is for user actions (search & index), but not for ES admin actions with higher impact to the cluster settings. Jörg -- ---
**Author:** ![polyfractal](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/polyfractal/32/48162_2.png) [@polyfractal](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/polyfractal)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/multi-tenancy-and-multiple-routing-values/10317/3 "2013-01-13T20:00:49Z")
Sharing data is not necessary...I had in fact planned on creating an authorization system with a reverse proxy to segment admins to their own data. How much overhead does a ES instance have, outside the memory heap memory that is assigned to it? My concern with a cluster per admin is that I do not know ahead of time the requirements of a particular admin, and therefore resources will over/under-provisioned. One admin may only need a single index with 10k documents, while another may require several indicies and 100m documents. I may also have a large number of admins (up to a hundred). I'm not sure how I would provision these clusters with appropriate memory _a priori_...I imagine full cluster restarts would be necessary if an admin outgrows their memory requirements. I assumed that it would be more efficient in (terms of hardware) to segment everyone into a single cluster, rather than try to balance individual cluster requirements. I also realize this is a use-case that ES was not exactly designed for, so kludgy solutions are going to happen regardless =) Thanks for the help! -Zach Unless the admins require to share data among them and you have enough > nodes, why not just deploy a cluster per admin? > > What I understand from Shay's Berlin Buzz, the user dataflow is for user > actions (search & index), but not for ES admin actions with higher impact > to the cluster settings. > > Jörg -- ---
**Author:** ![polyfractal](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/polyfractal/32/48162_2.png) [@polyfractal](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/polyfractal)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/multi-tenancy-and-multiple-routing-values/10317/4 "2013-01-14T02:02:33Z")
After thinking some more, the "cluster per admin" solution may be best, particularly because of OOM situations. If an admin accidentally causes an OOM due to a large facet, it would take down the entire node (including the data belonging to other admins). Whereas individual clusters will only shutdown the shards associated with a particular cluster and not everyone else. I'll pay a small memory penalty due to loading up JVM for each ES instance (somewhere in the 100-200mb range, best I can tell), but this is probably a small thing compared to knocking out service for other users. -Zach On Sunday, January 13, 2013 3:00:49 PM UTC-5, Zachary Tong wrote: > Sharing data is not necessary...I had in fact planned on creating an > authorization system with a reverse proxy to segment admins to their own > data. > > How much overhead does a ES instance have, outside the memory heap memory > that is assigned to it? My concern with a cluster per admin is that I do > not know ahead of time the requirements of a particular admin, and > therefore resources will over/under-provisioned. > > One admin may only need a single index with 10k documents, while another > may require several indicies and 100m documents. I may also have a large > number of admins (up to a hundred). I'm not sure how I would provision > these clusters with appropriate memory _a priori_...I imagine full > cluster restarts would be necessary if an admin outgrows their memory > requirements. > > I assumed that it would be more efficient in (terms of hardware) to > segment everyone into a single cluster, rather than try to balance > individual cluster requirements. > > I also realize this is a use-case that ES was not exactly designed for, so > kludgy solutions are going to happen regardless =) > > Thanks for the help! > -Zach > > Unless the admins require to share data among them and you have enough > > > nodes, why not just deploy a cluster per admin? > > > > What I understand from Shay's Berlin Buzz, the user dataflow is for user > > actions (search & index), but not for ES admin actions with higher impact > > to the cluster settings. > > > > Jörg -- ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2017, 2:56am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/multi-tenancy-and-multiple-routing-values/10317/5 "2017-07-06T02:56:41Z")