There is a requirement in one of the applications that we are working on is, aggregation to happen on a windowed manner and the windowing size may vary monthly/quarterly/half yearly/yearly.
Kafka streams calendar based timed window supports this and I would like to get more inputs on the performance front to know if it would best suit the need.
The memory consumed by the cache to hold the records till the window size.
Number of records that gets streamed on a daily basis within the window is really high.
Please suggest can Kafka stream processing be used in this case and how about the resources for the memory management.?
Related
Goal is to process raw readings (15min and 1h interval) from external remote meters (assets) in real time.
Process is defined using simple Apache Kafka producer/consumer and multiple Spring Boot microservices to deduplicate messages, transform (map) readings to our system (instead external codes insert internal IDS and similar stuff) and insert in TimescaleDB (extension of PostgreSql).
Everything seems fine, but there is requirement to perform real time prediction/estimation of missing intervals.
Simple example for one meter and 15 minute readings:
On day 1 we got all readings. We process them and have them ingested in our DB.
On day 2 we are missing all readings - so process is not even
started for this meter.
On day 3 we again got all readings - but only for day 3. Now we need
to predict that whole day 2 is missing and create empty readings and
then estimate them by some algorithm (that is not that important
now).
My question here, is there any way or idea how to do this without querying existing database in one of the microservices and checking if something is missing?
Is it possible to check previous messages in Kafka topics and based on that do the prediction/estimation (kafka streams? - I don't get them at all) and is that even smart to do, or there is any other way/idea to do it?
Personal opinion disclaimer
It is not reasonably possible to check previous messages in Kafka Streams. If you are hellbent on doing it, you could probably try to seek messages and re-consume them but Kafka will fight you every step on the way. The mental model is, that you are transforming or aggregating data that comes in in real time. If you need to query something about previous data, you ought to have collected that information when that data was coming through.
What could work (rather well even) is to separate the prediction of missing data from the transformation.
Create two consumers for the stream.
Have one topology (or whatever it is that does your transformations already) transform the data and load it back into Kafka and from there to timescaledb.
Have one topology (or another microservice) that does what is needed to predict missing data. Your usecase of backfilling a missing day could be handled by something like a count based on daily windows
Make that trigger your backfilling either as part of that topology or as a subsequent microservice and load that data to timescaledb as well.
Are you already using Kafka Streams for the transformations? This would be a classical usecase.
The recognition of missing data not so much
As far as I understand it does not require high throughput. More the opposite. You want to know if there is no data.
As far as I understand it latency is not a (main) concern.
Kafka Streams could be useful if you need to take automated action within seconds after data stops coming in. But even then, you could just write throughput metrics and trigger alerts in this case.
Pther than that, it is a very stateful problem and stream processing is at its best if you can treat every message separately reduce them in a "standard" manner like sums or counts.
I got the impression, that a delay of a few hours / a day is not that tragic and currently the backfilling might be done manually. In this case the cot of Kafka Streams would outweigh the benefits.
I'm contemplating on whether to use MongoDB or Kafka for a time series dataset.
At first sight obviously it makes sense to use Kafka since that's what it's built for. But I would also like some flexibility in querying, etc.
Which brought me to question: "Why not just use MongoDB to store the timestamped data and index them by timestamp?"
Naively thinking, this feels like it has the similar benefit of Kafka (in that it's indexed by time offset) but has more flexibility. But then again, I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why people use Kafka instead of MongoDB for this type of use case.
Could someone explain some of the reasons why one may want to use Kafka instead of MongoDB in this case?
I'll try to take this question as that you're trying to collect metrics over time
Yes, Kafka topics have configurable time retentions, and I doubt you're using topic compaction because your messages would likely be in the form of (time, value), so the time could not be repeated anyway.
Kafka also provides stream processing libraries so that you can find out averages, min/max, outliers&anamolies, top K, etc. values over windows of time.
However, while processing all that data is great and useful, your consumers would be stuck doing linear scans of this data, not easily able to query slices of it for any given time range. And that's where time indexes (not just a start index, but also an end) would help.
So, sure you can use Kafka to create a backlog of queued metrics and process/filter them over time, but I would suggest consuming that data into a proper database because I assume you'll want to be able to query it easier and potentially create some visualizations over that data.
With that architecture, you could have your highly available Kafka cluster holding onto data for some amount of time, while your downstream systems don't necessarily have to be online all the time in order to receive events. But once they are, they'd consume from the last available offset and pickup where they were before
Like the answers in the comments above - neither Kafka nor MongoDB are well suited as a time-series DB with flexible query capabilities, for the reasons that #Alex Blex explained well.
Depending on the requirements for processing speed vs. query flexibility vs. data size, I would do the following choices:
Cassandra [best processing speed, best/good data size limits, worst query flexibility]
TimescaleDB on top of PostgresDB [good processing speed, good/OK data size limits, good query flexibility]
ElasticSearch [good processing speed, worst data size limits, best query flexibility + visualization]
P.S. by "processing" here I mean both ingestion, partitioning and roll-ups where needed
P.P.S. I picked those options that are most widely used now, in my opinion, but there are dozens and dozens of other options and combinations, and many more selection criteria to use - would be interested to hear about other engineers' experiences!
I wonder if there is a way to specify the size of the mini-batch in Spark Structured streaming. That is rather than only stating the mini-batch interval (Triggers), I would like to state how many Row can be in a mini-batch (DataFrame) per interval.
Is there a way to do that ?
Aside from the general capability to do that, I particularily need to apply that in testing scenario, where i have an MemoryStream. I would like Spark to consume a certain amount of data from the MemoryStream, instead of taking all of it at once, to actually see how the the overall application behave. My understanding is that the MemoryStream data structure needs to be filled before launching the job on it. Hence, how can i see the mini-batch processing behavior, is spark is able to ingest the entire content of the MemoryStream within the interval that I give ?
EDIT1
In the Kafka Integration I have found the following:
maxOffsetsPerTrigger: Rate limit on maximum number of offsets processed per trigger interval. The specified total number of offsets will be proportionally split across topicPartitions of different volume.
But that is just for KAFKA integration. I have also seen
maxFilesPerTrigger: maximum number of new files to be considered in every trigger
So it seems things are defined per source types. Hence, is there a way to control how data is consumed from MEMORYSTREAM[ROW] ?
Look for below guys they can solve your problem:
1.spark.streaming.backpressure.initialRate
2.spark.streaming.backpressure.enabled
We have a topic with messages at the rate of 1msg per second with 3 partitions and I am using HDFS connector to write the data to HDFS as AVRo format(default), it generates files with size in KBS,So I tried altering the below properties in the HDFS properties.
"flush.size":"5000",
"rotate.interval.ms":"7200000"
but the output is still small files,So I need clarity on the following things to solve this issue:
is flush.size property mandatory, in-case if we do not mention the flus.size property how does the data gets flushed?
if the we mention the flush size as 5000 and rotate interval as 2 hours,it is flushing the data for every 2 hours for first 3 intervals but after that it flushes data randomly,Please find the timings of the file creation(
19:14,21:14,23:15,01:15,06:59,08:59,12:40,14:40)--highlighted the mismatched intervals.is it because of the over riding of properties mentioned?that takes me to the third question.
What is the preference for flush if we mention all the below properties (flush.size,rotate.interval.ms,rotate.schedule.interval.ms)
Increasing the rate of msg and reducing the partition is actually showing an increase in the size of the data being flushed, is it the only way to have control over the small files,how can we handle the properties if the rate of the input events are varying and not stable?
It would be great help if you could share documentations regarding handling small files in kafka connect with HDFS connector,Thank you.
If you are using a TimeBasedPartitioner, and the messages are not consistently going to have increasing timestamps, then you will end up with a single writer task dumping files when it sees a message with a lesser timestamp in the interval of rotate.interval.ms of reading any given record.
If you want to have consistent bihourly partition windows, then you should be using rotate.interval.ms=-1 to disable it, then rotate.schedule.interval.ms to some reasonable number that is within the partition duration window.
E.g. you have 7200 messages every 2 hours, and it's not clear how large each message is, but let's say 1MB. Then, you'd be holding ~7GB of data in a buffer, and you need to adjust your Connect heap sizes to hold that much data.
The order of presecence is
scheduled rotation, starting from the top of the hour
flush size or "message-based" time rotation, whichever occurs first, or there is a record that is seen as "before" the start of the current batch
And I believe flush size is mandatory for the storage connectors
Overall, systems such as Uber's Hudi or the previous Kafka-HDFS tool of Camus Sweeper are more equipped to handle small files. Connect Sink Tasks only care about consuming from Kafka, and writing to downstream systems; the framework itself doesn't recognize Hadoop prefers larger files.
I have a topology (see below) that reads off a very large topic (over a billion messages per day). The memory usage of this Kafka Streams app is pretty high, and I was looking for some suggestions on how I might reduce the footprint of the state stores (more details below). Note: I am not trying to scape goat the state stores, I just think there may be a way for me to improve my topology - see below.
// stream receives 1 billion+ messages per day
stream
.flatMap((key, msg) -> rekeyMessages(msg))
.groupBy((key, value) -> key)
.reduce(new MyReducer(), MY_REDUCED_STORE)
.toStream()
.to(OUTPUT_TOPIC);
// stream the compacted topic as a KTable
KTable<String, String> rekeyedTable = builder.table(OUTPUT_TOPIC, REKEYED_STORE);
// aggregation 1
rekeyedTable.groupBy(...).aggregate(...)
// aggreation 2
rekeyedTable.groupBy(...).aggregate(...)
// etc
More specifically, I'm wondering if streaming the OUTPUT_TOPIC as a KTable is causing the state store (REKEYED_STORE) to be larger than it needs to be locally. For changelog topics with a large number of unique keys, would it be better to stream these as a KStream and do windowed aggregations? Or would that not reduce the footprint like I think it would (e.g. that only a subset of the records - those in the window, would exist in the local state store).
Anyways, I can always spin up more instances of this app, but I'd like to make each instance as efficient as possible. Here's my question:
Are there any config options, general strategies, etc that should be considered for Kafka Streams app with this level of throughput?
Are there any guidelines for how memory intensive a single instance should have? Even if you have a somewhat arbitrary guideline, it may be helpful to share with others. One of my instances is currently utilizing 15GB of memory - I have no idea if that's good/bad/doesn't matter.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
With your current pattern
stream.....reduce().toStream().to(OUTPUT_TOPIC);
builder.table(OUTPUT_TOPIC, REKEYED_STORE)
you get two stores with the same content. One for the reduce() operator and one for reading the table() -- this can be reduced to one store though:
KTable rekeyedTable = stream.....reduce(.);
rekeyedTable.toStream().to(OUTPUT_TOPIC); // in case you need this output topic; otherwise you can also omit it completely
This should reduce your memory usage notably.
About windowing vs non-windowing:
it's a matter of your required semantics; so simple switching from a non-windowed to a windowed reduce seems to be questionable.
Even if you can also go with windowed semantics, you would not necessarily reduce memory. Note, in aggregation case, Streams does not store the raw records but only the current aggregate result (ie, key + currentAgg). Thus, for a single key, the storage requirement is the same for both cases (a single window has the same storage requirement). At the same time, if you go with windows, you might actually need more memory as you get an aggregate pro key pro window (while you get just a single aggregate pro key in the non-window case). The only scenario you might save memory, is the case for which you 'key space' is spread out over a long period of time. For example, you might not get any input records for some keys for a long time. In the non-windowed case, the aggregate(s) of those records will be stores all the time, while for the windowed case the key/agg record will be dropped and new entried will be re-created if records with this key occure later on again (but keep in mind, that you lost the previous aggergate in this case -- cf. (1))
Last but not least, you might want to have a look into the guidelines for sizing an application: http://docs.confluent.io/current/streams/sizing.html