my question is rather specific, so I will be ok with a general answer, which will point me in the right direction.
Description of the problem:
I want to deliver specific task data from multiple producers to a particular consumer working on the task (both are docker containers run in k8s). The relation is many to many - any producer can create a data packet for any consumer. Each consumer is processing ~10 streams of data at any given moment, while each data stream consists of 100 of 160b messages per second (from different producers).
Current solution:
In our current solution, each producer has a cache of a task: (IP: PORT) pair values for consumers and uses UDP data packets to send the data directly. It is nicely scalable but rather messy in deployment.
Question:
Could this be realized in the form of a message queue of sorts (Kafka, Redis, rabbitMQ...)? E.g., having a channel for each task where producers send data while consumer - well consumes them? How many streams would be feasible to handle for the MQ (i know it would differ - suggest your best).
Edit: Would 1000 streams which equal 100 000 messages per second be feasible? (troughput for 1000 streams is 16 Mb/s)
Edit 2: Fixed packed size to 160b (typo)
Unless you need disk persistence, do not even look in message broker direction. You are just adding one problem to an other. Direct network code is a proper way to solve audio broadcast. Now if your code is messy and if you want a simplified programming model good alternative to sockets is a ZeroMQ library. This will give you all MessageBroker functionality for which you care: a) discrete messaging instead of streams, b) client discoverability; without going overboard with another software layer.
When it comes to "feasible": 100 000 messages per second with 160kb message is a lot of data and it comes to 1.6 Gb/sec even without any messaging protocol on top of it. In general Kafka shines at message throughput of small messages as it batches messages on many layers. Knowing this sustained performances of Kafka are usually constrained by disk speed, as Kafka is intentionally written this way (slowest component is disk). However your messages are very large and you need to both write and read messages at same time so I don't see it happen without large cluster installation as your problem is actual data throughput, and not number of messages.
Because you are data limited, even other classic MQ software like ActiveMQ, IBM MQ etc is actually able to cope very well with your situation. In general classic brokers are much more "chatty" than Kafka and are not able to hit message troughpout of Kafka when handling small messages. But as long as you are using large non-persistent messages (and proper broker configuration) you can expect decent performances in mb/sec from those too. Classic brokers will, with proper configuration, directly connect a socket of producer to a socket of a consumer without hitting a disk. In contrast Kafka will always persist to disk first. So they even have some latency pluses over Kafka.
However this direct socket-to-socket "optimisation" is just a full circle turn to the start of an this answer. Unless you need audio stream persistence, all you are doing with a broker-in-the-middle is finding an indirect way of binding producing sockets to consuming ones and then sending discrete messages over this connection. If that is all you need - ZeroMQ is made for this.
There is also messaging protocol called MQTT which may be something of interest to you if you choose to pursue a broker solution. As it is meant to be extremely scalable solution with low overhead.
A basic approach
As from Kafka perspective, each stream in your problem can map to one topic in Kafka and
therefore there is one producer-consumer pair per topic.
Con: If you have lots of streams, you will end up with lot of topics and IMO the solution can get messier here too as you are increasing the no. of topics.
An alternative approach
Alternatively, the best way is to map multiple streams to one topic where each stream is separated by a key (like you use IP:Port combination) and then have multiple consumers each subscribing to a specific set of partition(s) as determined by the key. Partitions are the point of scalability in Kafka.
Con: Though you can increase the no. of partitions, you cannot decrease them.
Type of data matters
If your streams are heterogeneous, in the sense that it would not be apt for all of them to share a common topic, you can create more topics.
Usually, topics are determined by the data they host and/or what their consumers do with the data in the topic. If all of your consumers do the same thing i.e. have the same processing logic, it is reasonable to go for one topic with multiple partitions.
Some points to consider:
Unlike in your current solution (I suppose), once the message is received, it doesn't get lost once it is received and processed, rather it continues to stay in the topic till the configured retention period.
Take proper care in determining the keying strategy i.e. which messages land in which partitions. As said, earlier, if all of your consumers do the same thing, all of them can be in a consumer group to share the workload.
Consumers belonging to the same group do a common task and will subscribe to a set of partitions determined by the partition assignor. Each consumer will then get a set of keys in other words, set of streams or as per your current solution, a set of one or more IP:Port pairs.
Related
Imagine a scenario in which a producer is producing 100 messages per second, and we're working on a system that consuming messages ASAP matters a lot, even 5 seconds delay might result in a decision not to take care of that message anymore. also, the order of messages does not matter.
So I don't want to use a basic queue and a single pod listening on a single partition to consume messages, since in order to consume a message, the consumer needs to make multiple remote API calls and this might take time.
In such a scenario, I'm thinking of a single Kafka topic, with 100 partitions. and for each partition, I'm gonna have a separate machine (pod) listening for partitions 0 to 99.
Am I thinking right? this is my first project with Kafka. this seems a little weird to me.
For your use case, think of partitions = max number of instances of the service consuming data. Don't create extra partitions if you'll have 8 instances. This will have a negative impact if consumers need to be rebalanced and probably won't give you any performace improvement. Also 100 messages/s is very, very little, you can make this work with almost any technology.
To get the maximum performance I would suggest:
Use a round robin partitioner
Find a Parallel consumer implementation for your platform (for jvm)
And there a few producer and consumer properties that you'll need to change, but they depend your environment. For example batch.size, linger.ms, etc. I would also check about the need to set acks=all as it might be ok for you to lose data if a broker dies given that old data is of no use.
One warning: In Java, the standard kafka consumer is single threaded. This surprises many people and I'm not sure if the same is true for other platforms. So having 100s of partitions won't give any performance benefit with these consumers, and that's why it's important to use a Parallel Consumer.
One more warning: Kafka is a complex broker. It's trivial to start using it, but it's a very bumpy journey to use it correctly.
And a note: One of the benefits of Kafka is that it keeps the messages rather than delete them once they are consumed. If messages older than 5 seconds are useless for you, Kafka might be the wrong technology and using a more traditional broker might be easier (activeMQ, rabbitMQ or go to blazing fast ones like zeromq)
Your bottleneck is your application processing the event, not Kafka.
when you have ten consumers, there is overhead for connecting each consumer to Kafka so it will lower the performance.
I advise focusing on your application performance rather than message broker.
Kafka p99 Latency is 5 ms with 200 MB/s load.
https://developer.confluent.io/learn/kafka-performance/
I'm looking to try out using Kafka for an existing system, to replace an older message protocol. Currently we have a number of types of messages (hundreds) used to communicate among ~40 applications. Some are asynchronous at high rates and some are based upon request from user/events.
Now looking at Kafka, it breaks out topics and partitions etc. But I'm a bit confused as to what constitutes a topic. Does every type of message my applications produce get their own topic allowing hundreds of topics, or do I cluster them together to related message types? If the second answer, is it bad practice for an application to read a message and drop it when its contents are not what its looking for?
I'm also in a dilemma where there will be upwards of 10 copies of a single application (a display), all of which getting a very large amount of data (in form of a light weight video stream of sorts) and would be sending out user commands on each particular node. Would Kafka be a sufficient form of communication for this? Assuming that at most 10, but sometimes these particular applications may not have the desire to get the video stream at all times.
A third and final question: I read a bit about replay-ability of messages. Is this only within a single topic, or can the replay-ability go over a slew of different topics?
Kafka itself doesn't care about "types" of message. The only type it knows about are bytes, meaning that you are completely flexible to how you will serialize your datasets. Note, however that the default max message size is just 1MB, so "streaming video/images/media" is arguably the wrong use case for Kafka alone. A protocol like RTMP would probably make more sense
Kafka consumer groups scale horizontally, not in response to load. Consumers poll data at a rate at which they can process. If they don't need data, then they can be stopped, if they need to reprocess data, they can be independently seeked
Most articles depicts Kafka better in read/write throughput than other message broker(MB) like ActiveMQ. Per mine understanding reading/writing
with the help of offset makes it faster. But I am not clear how offset makes it faster ?
After reading Kafka architecture, I have got some understanding but not clear what makes Kafka scalable and high in throughput based on below points :-
Probably with the offset, client knows which exact message it needs to read which may be one of the factor to make it high in performance.
And in case of other MB's , broker need to coordinate among consumers so
that message is delivered to only consumer. But this is the case for queues only not for topics. Then What makes Kafka topic faster than other MB's topic.
Kafka provides partitioning for scalability but other message broker(MB) like ActiveMQ also provides the clustering. so how Kafka is better for big data/high loads ?
In other MB's we can have listeners . So as soon as message comes, broker will deliver the message but in case of Kafka we need to poll which means more
load on both broker/client side ?
Lots of details on what makes Kafka different and faster than other messaging systems are in Jay Kreps blog post here
https://engineering.linkedin.com/kafka/benchmarking-apache-kafka-2-million-writes-second-three-cheap-machines
There are actually a lot of differences that make Kafka perform well including but not limited to:
Maximized use of sequential disk reads and writes
Zero-copy processing of messages
Use of Linux OS page cache rather than Java heap for caching
Partitioning of topics across multiple brokers in a cluster
Smart client libraries that offload certain functions from the
brokers
Batching of multiple published messages to yield less frequent network round trips to the broker
Support for multiple in-flight messages
Prefetching data into client buffers for faster subsequent requests.
It's largely marketing that Kafka is fast for a message broker. For example IBM MessageSight appliances did 13M msgs/sec with microsecond latency in 2013. On one machine. A year before Kreps even started the Github.:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-launches-messagesight-appliance-aimed-at-m2m/
Kafka is good for a lot of things. True low latency messaging is not one of them. You flatly can't use batch delivery (e.g. a range of offsets) in any pure latency-centric environment. When an event arrives, delivery must be attempted immediately if you want the lowest latency. That doesn't mean waiting around for a couple seconds to batch read a block of events or enduring the overhead of requesting every message. Try using Kafka with an offset range of 1 (so: 1 message) if you want to compare it to a normal push-based broker and you'll see what I mean.
Instead, I recommend focusing on the thing pull-based stream buffering does give you:
Replayability!!!
Personally, I think this makes downstream data engineering systems a bit easier to build in the face of failure, particularly since you don't have to rely on their built-in replication models (if they even have one). For example, it's very easy for me to consume messages, lose the disks, restore the machine, and replay the lost data. The data streams become the single source of truth against which other systems can synchronize and this is exceptionally useful!!!
There's no free lunch in messaging, pull and push each have their advantages and disadvantages vs. each other. It might not surprise you that people have also tried push-pull messaging and it's no free lunch either :).
Considering a stream of different events the recommended way would be
one big topic containing all events
multiple topics for different types of events
Which option would be better?
I understand that messages not being in the same partition of a topic it means there are no order guarantee, but are there any other factors to be considered when making this decision?
A topic is a logical abstraction and should contain message of the same type. Let's say, you monitor a website and capture click stream events and on the other hand you have a database that populates it's changes into a changelog topics. You should have two different topics because click stream events are not related to you database changelog.
This has multiple advantages:
your data will have different format und you will need different (de)serializers to write read the data (using a single topic you would need a hybrid serializer and you will not get type safety when reading data)
you will have different consumer application and one application might be interested in click stream events only, while a second application is only interested in the database changelog and a third application is interested in both. If you have multiple topics, application one and two only subscribe to the topics they are interesting in -- if you have a single topic, application one an two need to read everything and filter the stuff they are not interested in increasing broker, network, can client load
As #Matthias J. Sax told before there is not a golden bullet over here. But we have to take different topics into account.
The conditioner: ordered deliveries
If you application needs guarantee order delivery, you need to work with only one topic, plus same keys for those messages which need to guarantee it.
If ordering is not mandatory, the game starts...
Does the schema same for all messages?
Would be consumers interested in the same type of different events?
What is gonna happen at the consumer side?, do we are reducing or increasing complexity in terms of implementation, maintainability, error handling...?
Does horizontal scalability important for us? More topics often means more partitions available, which means more horizontal scalability capacity. Also it allows more accurate scalability configuration at the broker side, because we can choose what number of partitions to increase per event type. or at the consumer side, what number of consumers stand up per event type.
Does makes sense parallelising consumption per message type?
...
Technically speaking, if we allow consumers to fine tune those type of events to be consumed we're potentially reducing the network bandwidth required to send undesired messages from the broker to the consumer, plus the number deserialisations for all of them (cpu used, which makes along time more free resources, energy cost reduction...).
Also is worthy to remember that splitting different type of messages in different topics doesn't mean have to consume them with different Kafka consumers because they allow consumption from different topics at the same time.
Well, there's not a clear answer for this question, but I have the feeling that with Kafka, because multiple features, if ordered deliveries are not needed we should split our messages per type in different topics.
I am working on an application that processes very few records in a minute. The request rate would be around 2 calls per minute. These requests are create and update made for a set of data. The requirements were delivery guarantee, reliable delivery, ordering guarantee and preventing any loss of messages.
Our team has decided to use Kafka and I think it does not fit the use case since Kafka is best suitable for streaming data. Instead we could have been better off with traditional message model as well. Though Kafka does provide ordering per partition, the same can be achieved on a traditional messaging system if the number of messages Is low and sources of data is also low. Would that be a fair statement ?
We are using Kafka streams for processing the data and the processing requires that we do lookups to external systems. If the external systems are not available then we stop processing and automatically deliver messages to target systems when the external lookup systems are available.
At the moment, we stop processing by continuously looping in the middle of a processing and checking if the systems are available.
a) Is that the best way to stop stream midway while processing so that it doesn't pick up any more messages ?
b) Are data stream frameworks even designed to be stopped or paused midway so they stop consuming the stream completely for some time ?
Regarding your point 2:
a) Is that the best way to stop stream midway while processing so that it doesn't pick up any more messages ?
If, as in your case, you have a very low incoming data rate (a few records per minute), then it might be ok to pause processing an input stream when required dependency systems are not available currently.
In Kafka Streams the preferable API to implement such a behavior -- which, as you are alluding to yourself, is not really a recommended pattern -- is the Processor API.
Even so there are a couple of important questions you need to answer yourself, such as:
What is the desired/required behavior of your stream processing application if the external systems are down for extended periods of time?
Could the incoming data rate increase at some point, which could mean that you would need to abandon the pausing approach above?
But again, if pausing is what you want or need to do, then you can give it a try.
b) Are data stream frameworks even designed to be stopped or paused midway so they stop consuming the stream completely for some time ?
Some stream processing tools allow you to do that. Whether it's the best pattern to use them is a different question.
For instance, you could also consider the following alternative: You could automatically ingest the external systems' data into Kafka, too, for example via Kafka's built-in Kafka Connect framework. Then, in Kafka Streams, you could read this exported data into a KTable (think of this KTable as a continuously updated cache of the latest data from your external system), and then perform a stream-table join between your original, low-rate input stream and this KTable. Such stream-table joins are a common (and recommended) pattern to enrich an incoming data stream with side data (disclaimer: I wrote this article); for example, to enrich a stream of user click events with the latest user profile information. One of the advantages of this approach -- compared to your current setup of querying external systems combined with a pausing behavior -- is that your stream processing application would be decoupled from the availability (and scalability) of your external systems.
is only a fair statement for traditional message brokers when there is a single consumer (i.e. an exclusive queue). As soon as the queue is shared by more than one consumer, there will be the possibility of out of order delivery of messages. This is because any one consumer might fail to processes and ACK a message resulting in the message being put back at the head of the shared queue, and subsequently delivered (out of order) to another consumer. Kafka guarantees in order parallel consumption across multiple consumers using topic partitions (which are not present in traditional message brokers).