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

[8.17] Document impact of using logsDB for security users #6272

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

nastasha-solomon
Copy link
Contributor

@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon commented Dec 4, 2024

Finishes addressing #5864 by providing 8.17 docs. Also updates the Serverless docs so they have the correct casing for logsdb.

NOTE: The content in this PR is mostly identical to the Serverless docs, save a few tweaks that change Serverless references to ESS.

Previews:

@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon added Priority: High Issues that are time-sensitive and/or are of high customer importance Effort: Small Issues that can be resolved quickly Docset: ESS Issues that apply to docs in the Stack release v8.17.0 v8.18.0 labels Dec 4, 2024
@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon self-assigned this Dec 4, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 4, 2024

A documentation preview will be available soon.

Request a new doc build by commenting
  • Rebuild this PR: run docs-build
  • Rebuild this PR and all Elastic docs: run docs-build rebuild

run docs-build is much faster than run docs-build rebuild. A rebuild should only be needed in rare situations.

If your PR continues to fail for an unknown reason, the doc build pipeline may be broken. Elastic employees can check the pipeline status here.

@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon marked this pull request as ready for review December 4, 2024 20:53
@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon requested a review from a team as a code owner December 4, 2024 20:53
approksiu
approksiu previously approved these changes Dec 5, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@approksiu approksiu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM! Thanks!

@nastasha-solomon nastasha-solomon mentioned this pull request Dec 10, 2024
12 tasks
Copy link
Contributor

@natasha-moore-elastic natasha-moore-elastic left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, just did a light grammar/spelling check since the content was already approved for serverless docs. 🚢

[[detections-logsdb-index-mode-impact]]
= Using logsdb index mode with {elastic-sec}

This topic explains the impact of using logsdb index mode with {elastic-sec}.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
This topic explains the impact of using logsdb index mode with {elastic-sec}.
This topic explains the impact of using logsdb index mode with {elastic-sec}.


With logsdb index mode, the original `_source` field is not stored in the index but can be reconstructed using {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source[synthetic `_source`].

When the `_source` is reconstructed, {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source-modifications[modifications] are possible. Therefore, there could be a mismatch between user's expectations and how fields are formatted.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
When the `_source` is reconstructed, {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source-modifications[modifications] are possible. Therefore, there could be a mismatch between user's expectations and how fields are formatted.
When the `_source` is reconstructed, {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source-modifications[modifications] are possible. Therefore, there could be a mismatch between users' expectations and how fields are formatted.

or

Suggested change
When the `_source` is reconstructed, {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source-modifications[modifications] are possible. Therefore, there could be a mismatch between user's expectations and how fields are formatted.
When the `_source` is reconstructed, {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source-modifications[modifications] are possible. Therefore, there could be a mismatch between a user's expectations and how fields are formatted.


With logsDB index mode, the original `_source` field is not stored in the index but can be reconstructed using {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source[synthetic `_source`].
With logsdb index mode, the original `_source` field is not stored in the index but can be reconstructed using {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source[synthetic `_source`].

When the `_source` is reconstructed, {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source-modifications[modifications] are possible. Therefore, there could be a mismatch between user's expectations and how fields are formatted.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
When the `_source` is reconstructed, {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source-modifications[modifications] are possible. Therefore, there could be a mismatch between user's expectations and how fields are formatted.
When the `_source` is reconstructed, {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source-modifications[modifications] are possible. Therefore, there could be a mismatch between users' expectations and how fields are formatted.

or

Suggested change
When the `_source` is reconstructed, {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source-modifications[modifications] are possible. Therefore, there could be a mismatch between user's expectations and how fields are formatted.
When the `_source` is reconstructed, {ref}/mapping-source-field.html#synthetic-source-modifications[modifications] are possible. Therefore, there could be a mismatch between a user's expectations and how fields are formatted.


LogsDB is enabled by default for {serverless-full}. This topic explains the impact of using logsDB index mode with {sec-serverless}.
Logsdb is enabled by default for {serverless-full}. This topic explains the impact of using logsdb index mode with {sec-serverless}.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Suggested change
Logsdb is enabled by default for {serverless-full}. This topic explains the impact of using logsdb index mode with {sec-serverless}.
Logsdb is enabled by default for {serverless-full}. This topic explains the impact of using logsdb index mode with {sec-serverless}.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Docset: ESS Issues that apply to docs in the Stack release Effort: Small Issues that can be resolved quickly Priority: High Issues that are time-sensitive and/or are of high customer importance v8.17.0 v8.18.0
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants