What happens to the long processing record when max.poll.interval.ms time exceeds will it run in the background and rebalancing will be triggered .
As per my limited understanding the kafka consumer( Spring kafkalistener) service gets halted / restarted and the records get assigned to other consumers in the group during rebalancing
You will have records left in memory being processed if the application or processing logic doesn't stop with the consumer thread.
If offsets were committed beforehand, those records would effectively be skipped after a rebalance. Otherwise, those offsets ideally shouldn't be committed post-processing since those records might be tried to be processed again, potentially resulting in data duplication, by other consumers after a rebalance.
Related
I have question regarding handling of consumers death due to exceeding the timeout values.
my example configuration:
session.timeout.ms = 10000 (10 seconds)
heartbeat.interval.ms = 2000 (2 seconds)
max.poll.interval.ms = 300000 (5 minutes)
I have 1 topic, 10 partitions, 1 consumer group, 10 consumers (1 partition = 1 consumer).
From my understanding consuming messages in Kafka, very simplified, works as follows:
consumer polls 100 records from topic
a heartbeat signal is sent to broker
processing records in progress
processing records completes
finalize processing (commit, do nothing etc.)
repeat #1-5 in a loop
My question is, what happens if time between heartbeats takes longer than previously configured session.timeout.ms. I understand the part, that if session times out, the broker initializes a re-balance, the consumer which processing took longer than the session.timeout.ms value is marked as dead and a different consumer is assigned/subscribed to that partition.
Okey, but what then...?
Is that long-processing consumer removed/unsubscribed from the topic and my application is left with 9 working consumers? What if all the consumers exceed timeout and are all considered dead, am I left with a running application which does nothing because there are no consumers?
Long-processing consumer finishes processing after re-balancing already took place, does broker initializes re-balance again and consumer is assigned a partition anew? As I understand it continues running #1-5 in a loop and sending a heartbeat to broker initializes also process of adding consumer to the consumers group, from which it was removed after being given dead status, correct?
Application throws some sort of exception indicating that session.timeout.ms was exceeded and the processing is abruptly stopped?
Also what about max.poll.interval.ms property, what if we even exceed that period and consumer X finishes processing after max.poll.interval.ms value? Consumer already exceeded the session.timeout.ms value, it was excluded from consumer group, status set to dead, what difference does it gives us in configuring Kafka consumer?
We have a process which extracts data for processing and this extraction consists of 50+ SQL queries (majority being SELECT's, few UPDATES), they usually go fast but of course all depends on the db load and possible locks etc. and there is a possibility that the processing takes longer than the session's timeout. I do not want to infinitely increase sessions timeout until "I hit the spot". The process is idempotent, if it's repeated X times withing X minutes we do not care.
Please find the answers.
#1. Yes. If all of your consumer instances are kicked out of the consumer group due to session.timeout, then you will be left with Zero consumer instance, eventually, consumer application is dead unless you restart.
#2. This depends, how you write your consumer code with respect to poll() and consumer record iterations. If you have a proper while(true) and try and catch inside, you consumer will be able to re-join the consumer group after processing that long running record.
#3. You will end up with the commit failed exception:
failed: Commit cannot be completed since the group has already rebalanced and assigned the partitions to another member. This means that the time between subsequent calls to poll() was longer than the configured max.poll.interval.ms, which typically implies that the poll loop is spending too much time message processing. You can address this either by increasing max.poll.interval.ms or by reducing the maximum size of batches returned in poll() with max.poll.records.
And again it depends on your code, to auto join into the consumer group.
#4. Answer lies here
session.timeout.ms
The amount of time a consumer can be out of contact with the brokers while still
considered alive defaults to 3 seconds. If more than session.timeout.ms passes
without the consumer sending a heartbeat to the group coordinator, it is considered
dead and the group coordinator will trigger a rebalance of the consumer group to
allocate partitions from the dead consumer to the other consumers in the group. This
property is closely related to heartbeat.interval.ms. heartbeat.interval.ms con‐
trols how frequently the KafkaConsumer poll() method will send a heartbeat to the
group coordinator, whereas session.timeout.ms controls how long a consumer can
go without sending a heartbeat. Therefore, those two properties are typically modi‐
fied together—heatbeat.interval.ms must be lower than session.timeout.ms, and
is usually set to one-third of the timeout value. So if session.timeout.ms is 3 sec‐
onds, heartbeat.interval.ms should be 1 second. Setting session.timeout.ms
lower than the default will allow consumer groups to detect and recover from failure
sooner, but may also cause unwanted rebalances as a result of consumers taking
longer to complete the poll loop or garbage collection. Setting session.timeout.ms
higher will reduce the chance of accidental rebalance, but also means it will take
longer to detect a real failure.
Suppose Kafka, 1 partition, 2 consumers.(2nd consumer is idle)
Suppose the 1st one consumed a message, goes to handle it with 3 other services and suddenly sticks on one of them and miss the Kafka's timeout.
Will Kafka reappoint the partition to the 2nd consumer and the message will doubly handled (suppose the 1st one eventually succeed)?
What if a Kafka's consumer handles a message too long? Will Kafka reappoint this partition to another consumer and the message will doubly handled?
Yes, that's correct. If Kafka consumer takes too long to handle a message and subsequent poll() is delayed, Kafka will re-appoint this partition to another consumer and the message will be processed again (and again).
For more clarity, first we need decide and define 'How long is too long?'.
This is defined by the property max.poll.interval.ms. From the docs,
The maximum delay between invocations of poll() when using consumer group management. This places an upper bound on the amount of time that the consumer can be idle before fetching more records. If poll() is not called before expiration of this timeout, then the consumer is considered failed and the group will rebalance in order to reassign the partitions to another member.
Consumer group is rebalanced if there are no calls to poll() within this time.
There is one more property auto.commit.interval.ms. The auto commit offsets check will be called only during the poll - it checks whether time elapsed is greater than the configured auto commit interval time and if result is yes, the offset is committed.
If Kafka consumer is taking too long to process the records, then the subsequent poll() call is also delayed and the offsets returned on the last poll() are not committed. If rebalance happens at this time, the new consumer client assigned to this partition will start processing the messages again.
Consumer group rebalance and resulting partition reassignment can be avoided by increasing this value. This will increase the allowed interval between polls and give more time to consumers to handle the record(s) returned from poll(). The consumers will only join the rebalance inside the call to poll, so increasing max poll interval will also delay group rebalances.
There is one more problem in increasing max poll interval to a big value. If the consumer dies for some other reason, it takes longer than the configured max.poll.interval.ms interval to detect the failure.
session.timeout.ms and heartbeat.interval.ms are available in this case to detect the total failure as earlier as possible.
For more details about these parameters:
Please refer this
KIP-62
Please note that the values configured for session.timeout.ms must be in the allowable range as configured in the broker configuration by properties
group.min.session.timeout.ms
group.max.session.timeout.ms
Otherwise, following exception will be thrown while starting consumer client.
Exception in thread "main" org.apache.kafka.common.errors.InvalidSessionTimeoutException:
The session timeout is not within the range allowed by the broker
(as configured by group.min.session.timeout.ms and group.max.session.timeout.ms)
Update: To avoid handling the messages again
There is another method in KafkaConsumer class commitAsync() to trigger commit offsets operation.
ConsumerRecords<String, String> records = kafkaConsumer.poll(Duration.ofMillis(500));
kafkaConsumer.commitAsync();
For more details on commitSync() and commitAsync(), please check this thread
Committing an offset manually is an action of saying that the offset has been processed so that the Kafka won't send the committed records for the same partition again. When offsets are committed manually, it is important to note that if the consumer dies before processing records for any reason, there is a chance these records won't be processed again.
I'm trying to understand what is better option to handle records that take longer to process in kafka consumer? I ran few tests to understand this and observed that we can control this with by modifying either max.poll.records or max.poll.interval.ms.
Now my question is, what's the better option to choose? Please suggest.
max.poll.records simply defines the maximum number of records returned in a single call to poll().
Now max.poll.interval.ms defines the delay between the calls to poll().
max.poll.interval.ms: The maximum delay between invocations of
poll() when using consumer group management. This places an upper
bound on the amount of time that the consumer can be idle before
fetching more records. If poll() is not called before expiration of
this timeout, then the consumer is considered failed and the group
will rebalance in order to reassign the partitions to another member.
For consumers using a non-null group.instance.id which reach this
timeout, partitions will not be immediately reassigned. Instead, the
consumer will stop sending heartbeats and partitions will be
reassigned after expiration of session.timeout.ms. This mirrors the
behavior of a static consumer which has shutdown.
I believe you can tune both in order to get to the expected behaviour. For example, you could compute the average processing time for the messages. If the average processing time is say 1 second and you have max.poll.records=100 then you should allow approximately 100+ seconds for the poll interval.
If you have slow processing and so want to avoid rebalances then tuning either would achieve that. However extending max.poll.interval.ms to allow for longer gaps between poll does have a bit of a side effect.
Each consumer only uses 2 threads - polling thread and heartbeat thread.
The latter lets the group know that your application is still alive so can trigger a rebalance before max.poll.interval.ms expires.
The polling thread does everything else in terms of group communication so during the poll method you find out if a rebalance has been triggered elsewhere, you find out if a partition leader has died and hence metadata refresh is required. The implication is that if you allow longer gaps between polls then the group as a whole is slower to respond to change (for example no consumers start receiving messages after a rebalance until they have all received their new partitions - if a rebalance occurs just after one consumer has started processing a batch for 10 minutes then all consumers will be hanging around for at least that long).
Hence for a more responsive group in situations where processing of messages is expected to be slow you should choose to reduce the records fetched in each batch.
I have a topic with 20 partitions and 3 processes with consumers(with the same group_id) consuming messages from the topic.
But I am seeing a discrepancy where unless one of the process commits , the other consumer(in a different process) is not reading any message.
The consumers in other process do cconsume messages when I set auto-commit to true. (which is why I suspect the consumers are being assigned to the first partition in each process)
Can someone please help me out with this issue? And also how to consume messages parallely across processes ?
If it is of any use , I am doing this on a pod(kubernetes) , where the 3 processes are 3 different mules.
Commit shouldn't make any difference because the committed offset is only used when there is a change in group membership. With three processes there would be some rebalancing while they start up but then when all 3 are running they will each have a fair share of the partitions.
Each time they poll, they keep track in memory of which offset they have consumed on each partition and each poll causes them to fetch from that point on. Whether they commit or not doesn't affect that behaviour.
Autocommit also makes little difference - it just means a commit is done synchronously during a subsequent poll rather than your application code doing it. The only real reason to manually commit is if you spawn other threads to process messages and so need to avoid committing messages that have not actually been processed - doing this is generally not advisable - better to add consumers to increase throughput rather than trying to share out processing within a consumer.
One possible explanation is just infrequent polling. You mention that other consumers are picking up partitions, and committing affects behaviour so I think it is safe to say that rebalances must be happening. Rebalances are caused by either a change in partitions at the broker (presumably not the case) or a change in group membership caused by either heartbeat thread dying (a pod being stopped) or a consumer failing to poll for a long time (default 5 minutes, set by max.poll.interval.ms)
After a rebalance, each partition is assigned to a consumer, and if a previous consumer has ever committed an offset for that partition, then the new one will poll from that offset. If not then the new one will poll from either the start of the partition or the high watermark - set by auto.offset.reset - default is latest (high watermark)
So, if you have a consumer, it polls but doesn't commit, and doesn't poll again for 5 minutes then a rebalance happens, a new consumer picks up the partition, starts from the end (so skipping any messages up to that point). Its first poll will return nothing as it is starting from the end. If it doesn't poll for 5 minutes another rebalance happens and the sequence repeats.
That could be the cause - there should be more information about what is going on in your logs - Kafka consumer code puts in plenty of helpful INFO level logging about rebalances.
I see from the logs that exact same message is consumed by the 665 times. Why does this happen?
I also see this in the logs
Commit cannot be completed since the group has already rebalanced and assigned the partitions to another member.
This means that the time between subsequent calls to poll() was longer than the configured session.timeout.ms, which typically implies
that the poll loop is spending too much time message processing. You can address this either by increasing the session
timeout or by reducing the maximum size of batches returned in poll() with max.poll.records.
Consumer properties
group.id=someGroupId
bootstrap.servers=kafka:9092
enable.auto.commit=false
key.deserializer=org.apache.kafka.common.serialization.StringDeserializer
value.deserializer=org.apache.kafka.common.serialization.StringDeserializer
session.timeout.ms=30000
max.poll.records=20
PS: Is it possible to consume only a specific number of messages like 10 or 50 or 100 messages from the 1000 that are in the queue?
I was looking at 'fetch.max.bytes' config, but it seems like it is for a message size rather than number of messages.
Thanks
The answer lies in the understanding of the following concepts:
session.timeout.ms
heartbeats
max.poll.interval.ms
In your case, your consumer receives a message via poll() but is not able to complete the processing in max.poll.interval.ms time. Therefore, it is assumed hung by the Broker and re-balancing of partitions happen due to which this consumer loses the ownership of all partitions. It is marked dead and is no longer part of a consumer group.
Then when your consumer completes the processing and calls poll() again two things happen:
Commit fails as the consumer no longer owns the partitions.
Broker identifies that the consumer is up again and therefore a re-balance is triggered and the consumer again joins the Consumer Group, start owning partitions and request messages from the Broker. Since the earlier message was not marked as committed (refer #1 above, failed commit) and is pending processing, the broker delivers the same message to consumer again.
Consumer again takes a lot of time to process and since is unable to finish processing in less than max.poll.interval.ms, 1. and 2. keep repeating in a loop.
To fix the problem, you can increase the max.poll.interval.ms to a large enough value based on how much time your consumer needs for processing. Then your consumer will not get marked as dead and will not receive duplicate messages.
However, the real fix is to check your processing logic and try to reduce the processing time.
The fix is described in the message you pasted:
You can address this either by increasing the session timeout or by
reducing the maximum size of batches returned in poll() with
max.poll.records.
The reason is a timeout is reached before your consumer is able to process and commit the message. When your Kafka consumer "commits", it's basically acknowledging receipt of the previous message, advancing the offset, and therefore moving onto the next message. But if that timeout is passed (as is the case for you), the consumer's commit isn't effective because it's happening too late; then the next time the consumer asks for a message, it's given the same message
Some of your options are to:
Increase session.timeout.ms=30000, so the consumer has more time
process the messages
Decrease the max.poll.records=20 so the consumer has less messages it'll need to work on before the timeout occurs. But this doesn't really apply to you because your consumer is already only just working on a single message
Or turn on enable.auto.commit, which probably also isn't the best solution for you because it might result in dropping messages though, as mentioned below:
If we allowed offsets to auto commit as in the previous example
messages would be considered consumed after they were given out by the
consumer, and it would be possible that our process could fail after
we have read messages into our in-memory buffer but before they had
been inserted into the database.
Source: https://kafka.apache.org/090/javadoc/org/apache/kafka/clients/consumer/KafkaConsumer.html