We have been using Kafka for various use cases and have solved various problems. But the one problem which we are frequently facing is messages with any one key will be suddenly produced more or it will take some secs of execution so that the messages for the other keys in the queue are processed in delay.
We have implemented various ways to find those keys and offloaded it to a separate queue where we will be having a topic pool. But the topics in the pool goes on increasing and we find that we are not using the topic resource in an efficient manner.
If we are having 100 such keys, then we need to create 100 such topics and this not seems to be an optimised solution.
Whether in these type of cases, we should store the data in the DB where the particular key's data resides and we need to implement our own Queue based on the data in the table or there is some other mechanisms in which we can solve this problem ?
This problem is only for the keys having high data rate and high processing time (with 3 to 5s). Can anyone suggest what will be the better architecture for these type of cases?
Related
This problem accrued to me a while ago, unfortunately, I could not find the answer I was looking for on the web. Here is the problem statement:
Consider a simple producer-consumer environment where we only have one
producer writing to a queue and one consumer reading from it. Now
since the objects written on the queue are quite large in size and our
available resources are not much on our current machine, we decided to
implement a distributed queue system where the data inside the queue
is partitioned among multiple nodes. It is important to us that the
total ordering is conserved while pushing and poping the data,
meaning that from the point of a user this distributed queue acts just
like a single unified queue.
Before giving a solution to this problem we have to ask if high availability is more important to us or portion tolerance. I believe in both versions, there are interesting challenges to tackle and I thought that such a question must surely be raised before, however, after searching for existing solutions I could not find a complete and well-thought-out answer from an algorithmic or scientific point of view. Most of what I found were engineering and high-level approaches, leveraging tools like Kafka, RabitMQ, Redis etc.
So the problem remains and I would be thankful if you could share with me your designs, algorithms and thoughts on this problem or point me to some scientific journal or article etc that has already tackled such a problem.
This can be one of the ways in which the above can be achieved. Here the partitioning is achieved in the round-robin fashion.
To achieve high availability, you can have partition replicas.
Pros:-
By adding replicas system becomes highly available.
Multi-consumer groups can be implemented
Cons:-
route table becomes the single source of failure, hence redundancy can be achieved via using dynamo DB & consistent read here.
Event sourcing means a 180 degree shift in the way many of us have been architecting and developing web applications, with lots of advantages but also many challenges.
Apache Kafka is an awesome platform that through its Apache Kafka Streams API is advertised as a tool that allows us to implement this paradimg through its many features (decoupling, fault tolerance, scalability...): https://www.confluent.io/blog/event-sourcing-cqrs-stream-processing-apache-kafka-whats-connection/
On the other hand there are some articles discouraging us from using it for event sourcing: https://medium.com/serialized-io/apache-kafka-is-not-for-event-sourcing-81735c3cf5c
These are my questions regarding Kafka Streams suitability as an event sourcing plaftorm:
The article above comes from Jesper Hammarbäck (who works for serialized.io, an event sourcing platform). I would like to get an answer to the main problems he brings up:
Loading current state. In my view with log compaction and state stores it's not a problem. Am I right?
Consistent writes.
When moving certain pieces of functionality into Kafka Streams I'm not sure if they do fit naturally:
Authentication & Security: Imagine your customers are stored in a state store generated from a customer-topic. Should we keep their passwords in the topic/store? It doesn't sound safe enough, does it? Then how are we supposed to manage this aspect of having customers on a state store and their passwords somewhere else? Any recommended good practice?
Queries: Interactive queries are a nice tool to generate queriable views of our data (by key). That's ok to get an entity by id but what about complex queries (joins)? Do we need to generate state stores per query? For instance one store for customers by id, another one for customers by state, another store for customers who purchased a product last year... It doesn't sound manageable. Another point is the lack of pagination: how can we handle big sets of data when querying the state stores? One more point, we can’t do dynamic queries (like JPA criteria API) anymore. This leads to CQRS maybe? Complexity keeps growing this way...
Data growth: with databases we are used to have thousands and thousands of rows per table. Kafka Streams applications keep a local state store that will grow and grow over time. How scalable is that? How is that local storage kept (local disk/RAM)? If it's disk we should provision applications with enough space, if it's RAM enough memory.
Loading Current State: The mechanism described in the blog, about re-reacting current state ad-hoc for a single entity would indeed be costly with Kafka. However Kafka Streams follow the philosophy to keep the current state for all object in a KTable (that is distributed/sharded). Thus, it's never required to do this -- of course, it come with certain memory costs.
Kafka Streams parallelized based on different events. Thus, all interactions for a single event (processing, state updates) are performed by a single thread. Thus, I don't see why there should be inconsistent writes.
I am not sure what the exact requirement would be. In the current implementation, Kafka Streams does not offer any store specific authentication or security features. There are several things one could do for security though: (a) encrypt the local disk: this might be the simplest thing to do to protect data. (2) encrypt messages within the business logic, before you put them into the store.
Interactive Queries offers limited support for many reasons (don't want to go into details) and it was never design with the goal to support complex queries. The idea is about eager computation of result what can be retrieved with simple lookups. As you pointed out, this is not very scalable (cost intensive) if you have a lot of different queries. To tackle this, it would make sense to load the data into a database, and let the DB does what it is build for. Kafka Streams alone is not the right tool for this atm -- however, there is no reason to not combine both.
Per default Kafka Streams uses RocksDB to keep local state (you can switch to in-memory stores, too). Thus, it's possible to write to disk and to use very large state. Of course, you need to provision your instances accordingly (cf: https://docs.confluent.io/current/streams/sizing.html). Besides this, Kafka Streams scales horizontally and is fully elastic. Thus, you can add new instances at any point in time allowing you to hold terra-bytes of state if you have large disks and enough instances. Note, that the number of input topic partitions limit the number of instances you can use (internally, Kafka Streams is a consumer group, and you cannot have more instances than partitions). If this is a concern, it's recommended to over-partition the input topics in the first place.
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
I would like to create a named topic per online user in my system using akka clustering. Does having couple of 10000s named topic at a time impact the performance negatively?
I would not recommend. Topic information is represented by a service key in the Receptionist. Between 10k and 100k is probably OK, above will most likely give you some performance issues.
Depending on what you need, using cluster sharding might be a better fit.
Is it possible to use a table in cassandra as a queue, I don't think the strategy I use in mysql works, ie given this table:
create table message_queue(id integer, message varchar(4000), retries int, sending boolean);
We have a transaction that marks the row as "sending", tries to send, and then either deletes the row, or increments the retries count. The transaction ensures that only one server will be attempting to process an item from the message_queue at any one time.
There is an article on datastax that describes the pitfalls and how to get around it, however Im not sure what the impact of having lots of tombstones lying around is, how long do they stay around for?
Don't do this. Cassandra is a terrible choice as a queue backend unless you are very, very careful. You can read more of the reasons in Jonathan Ellis blog post "Cassandra anti-patterns: Queues and queue-like datasets" (which might be the post you're alluding to). MySQL is also not a great choice for backing a queue, us a real queue product like RabbitMQ, it's great and very easy to use.
The problem with using Cassandra as the storage for a queue is this: every time you delete a message you write a tombstone for that message. Every time you query for the next message Cassandra will have to trawl through those tombstones and deleted messages and try to determine the few that have not been deleted. With any kind of throughput the number of read values versus the number of actual live messages will be hundreds of thousands to one.
Tuning GC grace and other parameters will not help, because that only applies to how long tombstones will hang around after a compaction, and even if you dedicated the CPUs to only run compactions you would still have dead to live rations of tens of thousands or more. And even with a GC grace of zero tombstones will hang around after compactions in some cases.
There are ways to mitigate these effects, and they are outlined in Jonathan's post, but here's a summary (and I don't write this to encourage you to use Cassandra as a queue backend, but because it explains a bit more about Cassandra works, and should help you understand why it's a bad fit for the problem):
To avoid the tombstone problem you cannot keep using the same queue, because it will fill upp with tombstones quicker than compactions can get rid of them and your performance will run straight into a brick wall. If you add a column to the primary key that is deterministic and depends on time you can avoid some of the performance problems, since fewer tombstones have time to build up and Cassandra will be able to completely remove old rows and all their tombstones.
Using a single row per queue also creates a hotspot. A single node will have to handle that queue, and the rest of the nodes will be idle. You might have lots of queues, but chances are that one of them will see much more traffic than the others and that means you get a hotspot. Shard the queues over multiple nodes by adding a second column to the primary key. It can be a hash of the message (for example crc32(message) % 60 would create 60 shards, don't use a too small number). When you want to find the next message you read from all of the shards and pick one of the results, ignoring the others. Ideally you find a way to combine this with something that depends on time, so that you fix that problem too while you're at it.
If you sort your messages after time of arrival (for example with TIMEUUID clustering key) and can somehow keep track of the newest messages that has been delivered, you can do a query to find all messages after that message. That would mean less thrawling through tombstones for Cassandra, but it is no panacea.
Then there's the issue of acknowledgements. I'm not sure if they matter to you, but it looks like you have some kind of locking mechanism in your schema (I'm thinking of the retries and sending columns). This will not work. Until Cassandra 2.0 and it's compare-and-swap features there is no way to make that work correctly. To implement a lock you need to read the value of the column, check if it's not locked, then write that it should now be locked. Even with consistency level ALL another application node can do the same operations at the same time, and both end up thinking that they locked the message. With CAS in Cassandra 2.0 it will be possible to do atomically, but at the cost of performance.
There are a couple of more answers here on StackOverflow about Cassandra and queues, read them (start with this: Table with heavy writes and some reads in Cassandra. Primary key searches taking 30 seconds.
The grace period can be defined. Per default it is 10 days:
gc_grace_seconds¶
(Default: 864000 [10 days]) Specifies the time to wait before garbage
collecting tombstones (deletion markers). The default value allows a
great deal of time for consistency to be achieved prior to deletion.
In many deployments this interval can be reduced, and in a single-node
cluster it can be safely set to zero. When using CLI, use gc_grace
instead of gc_grace_seconds.
Taken from the
documentation
On a different note, I do not think that implementing a queue pattern in Cassandra is very useful. To prevent your worker to process one entry twice, you need to enforce "ALL" read consistency, which defeats the purpose of distributed database systems.
I highly recommend looking at specialized systems like messaging systems which support the queue pattern natively. Take a look at RabbitMQ for instance. You will be up and running in no time.
Theo's answer about not using Cassandra for queues is spot on.
Just wanted to add that we have been using Redis sorted sets for our queues and it has been working pretty well. Some of our queues have tens of millions of elements and are accessed hundreds of times per second.