Our use case -> Using Remote partitioning - the job is devided into multiple partitions and using active MQ workers are processing these partitions.
Job is failing with memory issue at MessageChannelPartitionHandler handle method where it is holding more number of StepExecution in memory.(we have around 20K StepExecutions/partitions in this case)
we override message channel partition handler for submitting controlled messages to ActiveMQ and even when we try to poll replies from DB it is having database connection timeout issues and when we increased idle connection this approach as well failing to hold all those StepExecutions in memory.
Either case of our Custom/MessageChannelPartitionHandler we are facing similar issues and these step executions are required to aggregate at master. Do we have any alternative way of achieving this.
Can someone help us to understand better way of handling these long running/huge data processing scenarios?
Related
I am working with a microservice that consumes messages from Kafka. It does some processing on the message and then inserts the result in a database. Only then am I acknowledging the message with Kafka.
It is required that I keep data loss to an absolute minimum but recovery rate is quick (avoid reprocessing message because it is expensive).
I realized that if there was to be some kind of failure, like my microservice would crash, my messages would be reprocessed. So I thought to add some kind of 'checkpoint' to my process by writing the state of the transformed message to the file and reading from it after a failure. I thought this would mean that I could move my Kafka commit to an earlier stage, only after writing to the file is successful.
But then, upon further thinking, I realized that if there was to be a failure on the file system, I might not find my files e.g. using a cloud file service might still have a chance of failure even if the marketed rate is that of >99% availability. I might end up in an inconsistent state where I have data in my Kafka topic (which is unaccessible because the Kafka offset has been committed) but I have lost my file on the file system. This made me realize that I should send the Kafka commit at a later stage.
So now, considering the above two design decisions, it feels like there is a tradeoff between not missing data and minimizing time to recover from failure. Am I being unrealistic in my concerns? Is there some design pattern that I can follow to minimize the tradeoffs? How do I reason about this situation? Here I thought that maybe the Saga pattern is appropriate, but am I overcomplicating things?
If you are that concerned of data reprocess, you could always follow the paradigm of sending the offsets out of kafka.
For example, in your consumer-worker reading loop:
(pseudocode)
while(...)
{
MessageAndOffset = getMsg();
//do your things
saveOffsetInQueueToDB(offset);
}
saveOffsetInQueueToDB is responsible of adding the offset to a Queue/List, or whatever. This operation is only done one the message has been correctly processed.
Periodically, when a certain number of offsets are stored, or when shutdown is captured, you could implement another function that stores the offsets for each topic/partition in:
An external database.
An external SLA backed storing system, such as S3 or Azure Blobs.
Internal (disk) and remote loggers.
If you are concerned about failures, you could use a combination of two of those three options (or even use all three).
Storing these in a "memory buffer" allows the operation to be async, so there's no need for a new transfer/connection to the database/datalake/log for each processed message.
If there's a crash, you could read all messages from the beginning (easiest way is just changing the group.id and setting from beginning) but discarding those whose offset is included in the database, avoiding the reprocess. For example by adding a condition in your loop (yep pseudocode again):
while(...)
{
MessageAndOffset = getMsg();
if (offset.notIncluded(offsetListFromDB))
{
//do your things
saveOffsetInQueueToDB(offset);
}
}
You could implement better performant algorithms instead a "non-included" type one, just storing the last read offsets for each partition in a HashMap and then just checking if the partition that belongs to each consumer is bigger or not than the stored one. For example, partition 0's last offset was 558 and partitions 1's 600:
//offsetMap = {[0,558],[1,600]}
while(...)
{
MessageAndOffset = getMsg();
//get partition => 0
if (offset > offsetMap.get(partition))
{
//do your things
saveOffsetInQueueToDB(offset);
}
}
This way, you guarantee that only the non-processed messages from each partition will be processed.
Regarding file system failures, that's why Kafka comes as a cluster: Fault tolerance in Kafka is done by copying the partition data to other brokers which are known as replicas.
So if you have 5 brokers, for example, you must experience a total of 5 different system failures at the same time (I guess brokers are in separate hosts) in order to lose any data. Even 4 different brokers could fail at the same time without losing any data.
All brokers save the same amount of data, same partitions. If a filesystem error occurs in one of the brokers, the others will still hold all the information:
I want to configure a cluster with the following expected behavior:
Сluster must be HA ( 3 nodes at least).
I have queues in which it is important to maintain processing order. The consumer always reads this queue in a single thread. If he took the message, then we consider our task completed.
I don't need load balancing - it is important for me to maintain the order of messages.
I want to avoid split-brain.
If we have 3 nodes, then if 1 of the nodes fails, the cluster should continue to work.
I tried following configurations:
master + slave + slave with replication.
It works. But does not solve the problem of split brain
master + slave + slave + Pinger
As far as I understand, this does not give a 100% guarantee of detecting network problems. We can also get split-brain.
3 pairs of live/backup nodes.
This is solved split brain problem but how can we avoid the following situation:
Producer send message to group A in queue (where important to maintain processing order)
Group A crashed ( 1/3 of all nodes 2/6)
The message stored in the journal of group A
Cluster continue to work;
Producer send message to group B in queue (where important to maintain processing order)
Consumer got this message first; We did not support the required message order.
How should I build a cluster to solve these problems?
You can't achieve the behavior you want using replication. You need to use a shared store between the nodes. If you must use 3 nodes then I would recommend master + slave + slave. Otherwise I'd recommend master + slave.
Also, for what it's worth, replication is not synchronous within the broker. It is asynchronous and non-blocking. However, it is still reliable. For example, when a broker is configured for HA with replication and it receives a durable message from a client it will persist that message to disk and send it to the replicated backup concurrently without blocking. However, it will wait for both operations to finish before responding to the client that it has received the message. This allows much greater message throughput than using a synchronous architecture internally although the whole process will appear to be synchronous to external clients.
Also, it's worth noting that work is underway to change how replication works to make it more robust against split brain and to enable a single master + slave pair that is suitable for production use.
Looking out for best approach for designing my Kafka Consumer. Basically I would like to see what is the best way to avoid data loss in case there are any
exception/errors during processing the messages.
My use case is as below.
a) The reason why I am using a SERVICE to process the message is - in future I am planning to write an ERROR PROCESSOR application which would run at the end of the day, which will try to process the failed messages (not all messages, but messages which fails because of any dependencies like parent missing) again.
b) I want to make sure there is zero message loss and so I will save the message to a file in case there are any issues while saving the message to DB.
c) In production environment there can be multiple instances of consumer and services running and so there is high chance that multiple applications try to write to the
same file.
Q-1) Is writing to file the only option to avoid data loss ?
Q-2) If it is the only option, how to make sure multiple applications write to the same file and read at the same time ? Please consider in future once the error processor
is build, it might be reading the messages from the same file while another application is trying to write to the file.
ERROR PROCESSOR - Our source is following a event driven mechanics and there is high chance that some times the dependent event (for example, the parent entity for something) might get delayed by a couple of days. So in that case, I want my ERROR PROCESSOR to process the same messages multiple times.
I've run into something similar before. So, diving straight into your questions:
Not necessarily, you could perhaps send those messages back to Kafka in a new topic (let's say - error-topic). So, when your error processor is ready, it could just listen in to the this error-topic and consume those messages as they come in.
I think this question has been addressed in response to the first one. So, instead of using a file to write to and read from and open multiple file handles to do this concurrently, Kafka might be a better choice as it is designed for such problems.
Note: The following point is just some food for thought based on my limited understanding of your problem domain. So, you may just choose to ignore this safely.
One more point worth considering on your design for the service component - You might as well consider merging points 4 and 5 by sending all the error messages back to Kafka. That will enable you to process all error messages in a consistent way as opposed to putting some messages in the error DB and some in Kafka.
EDIT: Based on the additional information on the ERROR PROCESSOR requirement, here's a diagrammatic representation of the solution design.
I've deliberately kept the output of the ERROR PROCESSOR abstract for now just to keep it generic.
I hope this helps!
If you don't commit the consumed message before writing to the database, then nothing would be lost while Kafka retains the message. The tradeoff of that would be that if the consumer did commit to the database, but a Kafka offset commit fails or times out, you'd end up consuming records again and potentially have duplicates being processed in your service.
Even if you did write to a file, you wouldn't be guaranteed ordering unless you opened a file per partition, and ensured all consumers only ran on a single machine (because you're preserving state there, which isn't fault-tolerant). Deduplication would still need handled as well.
Also, rather than write your own consumer to a database, you could look into Kafka Connect framework. For validating a message, you can similarly deploy a Kafka Streams application to filter out bad messages from an input topic out into a topic to send to the DB
We are having an issue regarding parallelism of tasks inside a single topology. We cannot manage to get a good, fluent processing rate.
We are using Kafka and Storm to build a system with different topologies, where data is processed following a chain of topologies connected using Kafka topics.
We are using Kafka 1.0.0 and Storm 1.2.1.
The load is small in number of messages, about 2000 per day, however each task can take quite some time. One topology in particular can take a variable amount of time to process each task, usually between 1 and 20 minutes. If processed sequentially, the throughput is not enough to process all incoming messages. All topologies and Kafka system are installed in a single machine (16 cores, 16 GB of RAM).
As messages are independent and can be processed in parallel, we are trying to use Storm concurrent capabilities to improve the throughput.
For that the topology has been configured as follows:
4 workers
parallelism hint set to 10
Message size when reading from Kafka large enough to read about 8 tasks in each message.
Kafka topics use replication-factor = 1 and partitions = 10.
With this configuration, we observe the following behavior in this topology.
About 7-8 tasks are read in a single batch from Kafka by the Storm topology (task size is not fixed), max message size of 128 kB.
About 4-5 task are computed concurrently. Work is more-or-less evenly distributed among workers. Some workers take 1 task, others take 2 and process them concurrently.
As tasks are being finished, the remaining tasks start.
A starvation problem is reached when only 1-2 tasks remain to be processed. Other workers wait idle until all tasks are finished.
When all tasks are finished, the message is confirmed and sent to the next topology.
A new batch is read from Kafka and the process starts again.
We have two main issues. First, even with 4 workers and 10 parallelism hint, only 4-5 tasks are started. Second, no more batches are started while there is work pending, even if it is just 1 task.
It is not a problem of not having enough work to do, as we tried inserting 2000 tasks at the beginning, so there is plenty of work to do.
We have tried to increase the parameter "maxSpoutsPending", expecting that the topology would read more batches and queue them at the same time, but it seems they are being pipelined internally, and not processed concurrently.
Topology is created using the following code:
private static StormTopology buildTopologyOD() {
//This is the marker interface BrokerHosts.
BrokerHosts hosts = new ZkHosts(configuration.getProperty(ZKHOSTS));
TridentKafkaConfig tridentConfigCorrelation = new TridentKafkaConfig(hosts, configuration.getProperty(TOPIC_FROM_CORRELATOR_NAME));
tridentConfigCorrelation.scheme = new RawMultiScheme();
tridentConfigCorrelation.fetchSizeBytes = Integer.parseInt(configuration.getProperty(MAX_SIZE_BYTES_CORRELATED_STREAM));
OpaqueTridentKafkaSpout spoutCorrelator = new OpaqueTridentKafkaSpout(tridentConfigCorrelation);
TridentTopology topology = new TridentTopology();
Stream existingObject = topology.newStream("kafka_spout_od1", spoutCorrelator)
.shuffle()
.each(new Fields("bytes"), new ProcessTask(), new Fields(RESULT_FIELD, OBJECT_FIELD))
.parallelismHint(Integer.parseInt(configuration.getProperty(PARALLELISM_HINT)));
//Create a state Factory to produce outputs to kafka topics.
TridentKafkaStateFactory stateFactory = new TridentKafkaStateFactory()
.withProducerProperties(kafkaProperties)
.withKafkaTopicSelector(new ODTopicSelector())
.withTridentTupleToKafkaMapper(new ODTupleToKafkaMapper());
existingObject.partitionPersist(stateFactory, new Fields(RESULT_FIELD, OBJECT_FIELD), new TridentKafkaUpdater(), new Fields(OBJECT_FIELD));
return topology.build();
}
and config created as:
private static Config createConfig(boolean local) {
Config conf = new Config();
conf.setMaxSpoutPending(1); // Also tried 2..6
conf.setNumWorkers(4);
return conf;
}
Is there anything we can do to improve the performance, either by increasing the number of parallel tasks or/and avoiding starvation while finishing to process a batch?
I found an old post on storm-users by Nathan Marz regarding setting parallelism for Trident:
I recommend using the "name" function to name portions of your stream
so that the UI shows you what bolts correspond to what sections.
Trident packs operations into as few bolts as possible. In addition,
it never repartitions your stream unless you've done an operation
that explicitly involves a repartitioning (e.g. shuffle, groupBy,
partitionBy, global aggregation, etc). This property of Trident
ensures that you can control the ordering/semi-ordering of how things
are processed. So in this case, everything before the groupBy has to
have the same parallelism or else Trident would have to repartition
the stream. And since you didn't say you wanted the stream
repartitioned, it can't do that. You can get a different parallelism
for the spout vs. the each's following by introducing a repartitioning
operation, like so:
stream.parallelismHint(1).shuffle().each(…).each(…).parallelismHint(3).groupBy(…);
I think you might want to set parallelismHint for your spout as well as your .each.
Regarding processing multiple batches concurrently, you are right that that is what maxSpoutPending is for in Trident. Try checking in Storm UI that your max spout pending value is actually picked up. Also try enabling debug logging for the MasterBatchCoordinator. You should be able to tell from that logging whether multiple batches are in flight at the same time or not.
When you say that multiple batches are not processed concurrently, do you mean by ProcessTask? Keep in mind that one of the properties of Trident is that state updates are ordered with regard to batches. If you have e.g. maxSpoutPending=3 and batch 1, 2 and 3 in flight, Trident won't emit more batches for processing until batch 1 is written, at which point it'll emit one more. So slow batches can block emitting more, even if 2 and 3 are fully processed, they have to wait for 1 to finish and get written.
If you don't need the batching and ordering behavior of Trident, you could try regular Storm instead.
More of a side note, but you might want to consider migrating off storm-kafka to storm-kafka-client. It's not important for this question, but you won't be able to upgrade to Kafka 2.x without doing it, and it's easier before you get a bunch of state to migrate.
What?
I have a private MSMQ transactional queue that I need to export all (600k) messages, purge then import the messages back into the queue. When importing these messages I'm currently using a single transaction and getting an insufficient resources error. I can switch to use multiple transactions but I need a way to work out how many messages I can process in a single transaction, any ideas?
Why ?
If we don't periodically perform this operation the .mq files become bloated and fragmented. If there is another way to fix this problem let me know.
We had the same problem with MQ files when we got 7500 MQ-files with the total size about 30 gigabytes.
The solution is very easy.
You should purge Transaction dead-letter messages on this machine and after that you should restart MSMQ service.
When this service starts it runs defragmentation procedure. It compacts used space and removes unused MQ files.