I have worked on some Kafka stream application and Kafka consumer application. In the end, Kafka stream is nothing but consumer which consumes real-time events from Kafka. So I am not able to figure out when to use Kafka streams or why we should use Kafka streams as we can perform all transformation on the consumer end.
I want to understand the main difference between Kafka stream and Kafka consumer as implementation wise and how to make a decision about what we should use in different use cases.
Thanks in advance for answers.
It's a question about "easy of use" (or simplicity) and "flexibility". The two "killer features" of Kafka Streams, compared to plain consumer/producer are:
built-in state handling, and
exactly-once processing semantics.
Building a stateful, fault-tolerant application or using Kafka transactions with plain consumers/producers is quite difficult to get right. Furthermore, the higher level DSL provides a lot of built-in operators that are hard to build from scratch, especially:
windowing and
joins (stream-stream, stream-table, table-table)
Another nice feature is punctuations.
However, even if you build a simple stateless application, using Kafka Streams can help you significantly to reduce you code base (ie, avoid boilerplate code). Hence, the recommendation is, to use Kafka Streams when possible and only fall back to consumer/producer if Kafka Streams is not flexible enough for your use case.
It's different ways to do the same thing, with different levels of abstraction and functionality.
Here's a side-by-side comparison of doing the same thing (splitting a string into two separate fields) in Kafka vs in Kafka Streams (for good measure it shows doing it in ksqlDB too)
Related
Assuming I have input data coming in via Kafka topics, and output data to be sent to Kafka topics as well, under what circumstances would Flink be able to process data faster than Kafka Streams? At least when it comes to the time spent consuming and producing, I would not expect Flink to be any faster than Kafka Streams.
Both Flink and Kafka Streams are built on top of the same Producer and Consumer API, so they'll act similarly, up to a point. Once you get into the specific API/DSL, then the stacktrace gets more nested.
Outside of record serialization, Flink can perform more tasks like using Flink SQL compared to Kafka's KSQL, but in those cases, you're managing an external cluster.
Personally, I find Kafka Streams to be faster to develop and maintain because the application itself is the deployable unit, not something to submit to a pool of resources that might be preempted by some scheduler. But if you want to use more than a JVM language, then you will need to venture into Flink or even Beam. And those other languages will be slower because the code will then interface with those native Java libraries.
We have confluents platform in our infrastructure. At core, we are using kafka broker to distribute events. Dozens of devices produce events to kafka topics (there is a kafka topic for each type of event), where events are serialized in google's protobuf. We have confluent's schema registry to keep track of the protobuf schemas.
What we need is, for several events, we need to apply some transformation and then publish the transformation output to some other kafka topic. Of course Kafka Streams is one way to accomplish that, like in this example. However, we don't want to have a java application for each transformation (which increase the complexity of the project and development/deployment effort), and it doesn't feels right to put all streams in one application (modifying one will require to stop all streams ans start again).
At this point, we thought that maybe Confluent's Kafka Connect might be better approach. We can have several workers, and we can deploy them into one kafka connect instance/or cluster. The question is;
Does it make sense to use kafka connect to get message from one kafka topic and send it to another kafka topic? Be cause all the use cases and examples aims to get data from outside (database, file etc.) to kafka, and from kafka to outside.
To clarify, Kafka Connect is not "Confluent's", it's part of Apache Kafka.
While you could use MirrorMaker2/Confluent Replicator with transforms, it honestly wouldn't be much different than extracting the transformation logic into a shared library, then bundling a deployable Kafka Streams application that accepts configuration parameters for input and output topics with the transformation in-between.
You make a good point about single-point of administration, but that's also a single point of failure... If you use Connect, changing your transform plugin will also require you to stop and restart the Connect server, if all topics are part of the same connector, then any task failure would stop some percentage of the topic transformations
Kafka Streams (or KSQL) is preferred for inter-cluster translations, anyway
You could also look at solutions like Apache Nifi for more complex event management and routing
Confluent documents that I was able to find all focus on Kafka Streams application when it comes to exactly-once/transactions/idempotence.
However, the APIs for transactions were introduced on a "regular" Producer/Consumer level and all the explanations and diagrams focus on them.
I was wondering whether it's Ok to use those API directly without Kafka Streams.
I do understand the consequences of Kafka processing boundaries and the guarantees, and I'm Ok with violating it. I don't have a need for 100% exactly-once guarantee, it's Ok to have a duplicate once in a while, for example, when I read from/write to external systems.
The problem I'm facing is that I need to create an ETL pipeline for Big Data project where we are getting a lot of duplicates when the apps are restated/relocated to different hosts automatically by Kubernetes.
In general, it's not a problem to have some duplicates, it's a pipeline for analytics where duplicates are acceptable, but if the issue can be mitigated at least on the Kafka side - that would be great. Will using transactional API guarantee exactly-once for Kafka at least(to make sure that re-processing doesn't happen when reassignments/shut-downs/scaling activities are happening)?
Switching to Kafka Streams is not an option because we are quite late in the project.
Exactly-once semantics is achievable with regular producers and consumers also. Kafka Streams are built on top of these clients themselves.
We can use an idempotent producer to do achieve this.
When dealing with external systems, it is important to ensure that we don't produce the same message again and again using producer.send(). Idempotence applies to internal retries by Kafka clients but doesn't take care of duplicate calls to send().
When we produce messages that arrive from a source we need to ensure that the source doesn't produce a duplicate message. For example, if it is a database, use a WAL and last maintain last read offset for that WAL and restart from that point. Debezium, for example does that. You may check to see if it supports your datasource.
I need data from kafka brokers,but for fast access I am using multiple consumers with same group id known as consumer groups.But after reading by each consumer,how can we combine data from multiple consumers? Is there any logic?
By design, different consumers in the same consumer group process data independently from each other. (This behavior is what allows applications to scale well.)
But after reading by each consumer,how can we combine data from multiple consumers? Is there any logic?
The short but slightly simplified answer when you use Kafka's "Consumer API" (also called: "consumer client" library), which I think is what you are using based on the wording of your question: If you need to combine data from multiple consumers, the easiest option is to make this (new) input data available in another Kafka topic, where you do the combining in a subsequent processing step. A trivial example would be: the other, second Kafka topic would be set up to have just 1 partition, so any subsequent processing step would see all the data that needs to be combined.
If this sounds a bit too complicated, I'd suggest to use Kafka's Streams API, which makes it much easier to define such processing flows (e.g. joins or aggregations, like in your question). In other words, Kafka Streams gives you a lot of the desired built-in "logic" that you are looking for: https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/streams/
The aim of Kafka is to provide you with a scalable, performant and fault tolerant framework. Having a group of consumers reading the data from different partitions asynchronously allows you to archive first two goals. The grouping of the data is a bit outside the scope of standard Kafka flow - you can implement a single partition with single consumer in most simple case but I'm sure that is not what you want.
For such things as aggregation of the single state from different consumers I would recommend you to apply some solution designed specifically for such sort of goals. If you are working in terms of Hadoop, you can use Storm Trident bolt which allows you to aggregate the data from you Kafka spouts. Or you can use Spark Streaming which would allow you to do the same but in a bit different fashion. Or as an option you can always implement your custom component with such logic using standard Kafka libraries.
I am currently working with Akka Stream Kafka to interact with kafka and I was wonderings what were the differences with Kafka Streams.
I know that the Akka based approach implements the reactive specifications and handles back-pressure, functionality that kafka streams seems to be lacking.
What would be the advantage of using kafka streams over akka streams kafka?
Your question is very general, so I'll give a general answer from my point of view.
First, I've got two usage scenario:
cases where I'm reading data from kafka, processing it and writing some output back to kafka, for these I'm using kafka streams exclusively.
cases where either the data source or sink is not kafka, for those I'm using akka streams.
This already allows me to answer the part about back-pressure: for the 1st scenario above, there is a back-pressure mechanism in kafka streams.
Let's now only focus on the first scenario described above. Let's see what I would loose if I decided to stop using Kafka streams:
some of my stream processors stages need a persistent (distributed) state store, kafka streams provides it for me. It is something that akka streams doesn't provide.
scaling, kafka streams automatically balances the load as soon as a new instance of a stream processor is started, or as soon as one gets killed. This works inside the same JVM, as well as on other nodes: scaling up and out. This is not provided by akka streams.
Those are the biggest differences that matter to me, I'm hoping that it makes sense to you!
The big advantage of Akka Stream over Kafka Streams would be the possibility to implement very complex processing graphs that can be cyclic with fan in/out and feedback loop. Kafka streams only allows acyclic graph if I am not wrong. It would be very complicated to implement cyclic processing graph on top of Kafka streams
Found this article to give a good summary of distributed design concerns that Kafka Streams provides (complements Akka Streams).
https://www.beyondthelines.net/computing/kafka-streams/
message ordering: Kafka maintains a sort of append only log where it stores all the messages, Each message has a sequence id also known as its offset. The offset is used to indicate the position of a message in the log. Kafka streams uses these message offsets to maintain ordering.
partitioning: Kafka splits a topic into partitions and each partition is replicated among different brokers. The partitioning allows to spread the load and replication makes the application fault-tolerant (if a broker is down the data are still available). That’s good for data partitioning but we also need to distribute the processes in a similar way. Kafka Streams uses the processor topology that relies on Kafka group management. This is the same group management that is used by the Kafka consumer to distribute load evenly among brokers (This work is mainly managed by the brokers).
Fault tolerance: data replication ensures data fault tolerance. Group management has fault tolerance built-in as it redistributes the workload among remaining live broker instances.
State management: Kafka streams provides a local storage backed up by a kafka change-log topic which uses log compaction (keeps only latest value for a given key).Kafka log compaction
Reprocessing: When starting a new version of the app, we can reprocess the logs from the start to compute new state then redirect the traffic the new instance and shutdown old application.
Time management: “Stream data is never complete and can always arrive out-of-order” therefore one must distinguish the event time vs processed time and handle it correctly.
Author also says "Using this change-log topic Kafka Stream is able to maintain a “table view” of the application state."
My take is that this applies mostly to an enterprise application where the "application state" is ... small.
For a data science application working with "big data", the "application state" produced by a combination of data munging, machine learning models and business logic to orchestrate all of this will likely not be managed well with Kafka Streams.
Also, am thinking that using a "pure functional event sourcing runtime" like https://github.com/notxcain/aecor will help make the mutations explicit and separate the application logic from the technology used to manage the persistent form of the state through the principled management of state mutation and IO "effects" (functional programming).
In other words the business logic does not become tangled with the Kafka apis.
Akka Streams emerged as a dataflow-centric abstraction for the Akka Actors model.
These are high-performance library built for the JVM and specially designed for general-purpose microservices.
Whereas as long as Kafka Streams is concerned, these are client libraries used to process unbounded data. They are used to read data from Kafka topics, then process it, and write the results to new topics.
Well I used both of those and I have a pretty good idea about their strength's and weaknesses.
If you are solely concentrated in Kafka and you don't have to much experience about stream processing, Kafka Streams is good solution out of the box to help understand the streaming concepts. It Achilles heel in my opinion is its datastore, RockDB to help stateful scenarios with KTable or internal State Stores.
If you use Kafka Streams library, RockDB install itself in the background transparently, which is great for a beginner but troublesome for an experienced developer. RockDB is a key/value database like Cassandra, it has the most strengths of Cassandra but also the weakness, one major of those you can only query the things with primary key, which is for most of the real life scenarios s huge limitation. There are some means to implement your own datastore but they are not that well documented and could be great challenge. Also RockDB is really great loading single Values but if you have iterate over things, after a Dataset size of 100 000 the performance degrades significantly.
Unfortunately while RockDB is embedded so deep in Kafka Streams, it is also not that easy to implement a CQRS solution with it.
And as mentioned above, it has no concept of Back Pressure while Kafka Consumer give Records one by one, in a scenario that you have to scale out that can be really good bottleneck. And be really careful about that statement that Kafka Streams does not need Backpressure mechanism, as this Netflix blog points out it can really cause unpleasant effects.
"By the following morning, alerts were received regarding high memory consumption and GC latencies, to the point where the service was unresponsive to HTTP requests. An investigation of the JVM memory dump revealed an internal Kafka message concurrent queue whose size had grown uncontrollably to over 1.3 million elements.
The cause for this abnormal queue growth is due to Spring KafkaListener’s lack of native back-pressure support."
Well so what are the advantages and disadvantages of Akka Streams compared to Kafka Streams. Well first of all, Akka is not that much of out of the box framework, you have to understand the concepts much better, it is not coupled with single persistence of options, you can choose whatever you want. It has direct support for CQRS pattern (Akka Projection) so you are not bound to query your data only over Primary Key. Akka developer thought about a lot scaling out and back pressure, committed a lot of code to Kafka code base to improve performance.
So if you are only working with Kafka and new to Stream Processing you can use Kafka Streams but be prepared that at some point you can hit a wall and switch to Akka Stream.
You want to see working details/example, I have two blogs about it, you can check it those, blog1 blog2