I just want to know how the Consumer is able to consume data when the producer is down. Let's say Producer keeps sending logs to the consumer at a steady rate and then the producer goes down from 8AM- 6PM. How does the consumer work in such a case and is there a way that the consumer can get the data that would have been sent during 8am - 6pm if the producer was up.
In Apache Kafka there is no relationship between how producer and consumer behaves.
Acting as a messaging system, Kafka allows to decoupling producer from a consumer providing an asynchronous communication channel.
The producer can send messages at its own pace and the consumer can read these messages in real time or later at its own pace (different from the producer one).
The messages are saved in a topic living in the Kafka cluster, and each message has a position in the topic partition (offset).
Of course, it's possible to tune when messages are deleted from the topic if the consumer isn't online for long time reading the messages.
You can set to store messages for very long time (days, weeks, months) and after that they will be deleted; or you can set to store messages based on time (so deleting the ones older than a time).
Furthermore, the consumer is also able to rewind the stream of messages in the topic, actually re-reading the messages if needed.
Finally, the consumer can also seek to a specific position in the topic partition based on offset or specifiying a time.
The Kafka doc has a nice diagram which I copied below. It shows the novelty of Kafka in a succinct way.
Without Kafka, the situation is something like this. We have multiple servers, e.g. Frontend servers, DB servers, Chat servers etc. On the other side, we have probably different metrics and monitoring tools (e.g. DB monitor, UI monitor etc.). Direct one-to-one communications between different servers and collectors might work out for smaller systems, but it breaks down pretty quickly after the system has surpassed a a certain threshold, in terms of scalability. Kafka solves this problem by decoupling the senders and receivers. Both of them talk through the Kafka brokers instead of talking to each other.
So, in your case the consumer would simply ask the broker if there's any new data on the topic it's subscribing to. As the producer is down, and assuming there is no data in the queue, broker would reply, there's nothing to be consumed.. So, the consumer would be perpetually polling in a fixed interval, in an endless loop and do nothing. Whenever the producer comes up and starts pumping out data, consumer would start receiving (and processing) it. There are more involved use cases when you might be losing data if retention period for particular topic is over, and the consumer hasn't processed the backlog. But I don't think that's a concern for you at this point of your journey.
Related
I have been reading about Kafka for weeks now but have some doubts which I was not able to resolve by going through multiple resources. Sorry if these are lame questions.
Kafka is a pub-sub system but the consumer pulls data from kafka broker - I have read that pull will be better than pushing (with some cons) but if we are pulling the data why do we call it a pub-sub system? Here Kafka is not notifying the consumers who have subscribed, rather consumer is pulling the data explicitly. (There are resources which say it is called pub-sub because data is not deleted after a consumer reads it (which happen in a queue). However the pub-sub name is still confusing to me).
If consumer is pulling data from the broker, then I understand that consumer needs to commit it to the broker (Delivery semantics), but then why do we say that in Kafka, we can start reading from whichever offset we want. I mean broker is keep a track of consumer offset, then to resume reading from a random offset do I need to provide another offset in the API and will the new offset will be reset at the broker's end or how this will happen.
Kafka is a distributed log. The servers are called brokers, and clients are producers and consumers. Calling it "pub sub" makes developers aware what group of problems/applications it can solve/support. It doesn't describe how it's different from other systems in the same group... More importantly, I don't think think "pub sub" is ever written in the official documentation.
it is called pub-sub because data is not deleted after a consumer reads it
If data is deleted, that describes a non-persistent queue, not a pub-sub system.
The main distinction is that there are "Publishers" and "Subscribers" that are not communicating point-to-point. It doesn't matter if the subscription mechanism is push or pull based. From Wikipedia -
In software architecture, publish–subscribe is a messaging pattern where senders of messages, called publishers, do not program the messages to be sent directly to specific receivers, called subscribers, but instead categorize published messages into classes without knowledge of which subscribers, if any, there may be. Similarly, subscribers express interest in one or more classes and only receive messages that are of interest, without knowledge of which publishers, if any, there are.
So, Kafka producers write to ("categorized") topics located on brokers, rather than directly to the consumers ("specific receivers, called subscribers"). Consumers can start reading from topics that don't (yet) exist. And Producers can send data to topics that have no consumer(s).
Back to your question -
to resume reading from a random offset do I need to provide another offset in the API and will the new offset will be reset at the broker's end or how this will happen.
First, consumers aren't required to commit to a consumer group. For any new/expired group, the auto.offset.reset config will be used to determine start position, otherwise, the committed offset for an assigned group/topic/partition combination will be used. This is prior to the consumer being able to seek individual partitions to random offsets.
=== Assume everything from consumer point of view ===
I was reading couple of Kafka articles and I saw that the number of partitions is coupled to number of micro-service instances.... Ex: If I say 1topic 1partition for my serviceA.. Producer pushes message to topicT1, partitionP1, and from consumerSide(ServiceA1) I can read from t1,p1. If I spin new pod(ServiceA2) to have highThroughput then second instance will never receive any message because Kafka/ZooKeeper assigns id to each Consumer and partition1 is already taken by serviceA1. So serviceA2++ stays idle... To avoid such a hassle Kafka recommends to add more partition, so that number of consumers can be increased/decreased based on need.
I was also able to test through commandLine and service2 never consumed any message. If I shut service1 then service2 was able to pick new message... So if I spin more pod then FailSafe/Availability increases but throughput is same always...
Is my assumption is correct. Am I missing anything. Now I feel like any standard messaging will have the same problem...How to extend message-oriented systems itself.
Every topic has a partition, by default it comes with only one partition if you don't define the partition count value. In your case, you have a consumer group that consists of two consumers. Every consumer read the log from the partition. In your case, first consumer read the log from the first partition(we have the only partition), and for second consumer there will be no partition to the consumer the data so it become idle. Once first consumer gets down then only the second consumer starts reading the data from the first partition from the last committed offset.
Please check below blogs and videos. It explains the topic, consumer, and consumer group in kafka.
https://www.javatpoint.com/apache-kafka-consumer-and-consumer-groups
http://cloudurable.com/blog/kafka-architecture-consumers/index.html
https://docs.confluent.io/platform/current/clients/consumer.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAdG16KaHLs
I hope this will give you idea about the consumer and consumer group.
A broad solution to this is to decouple consumption of a message (i.e. receiving a message from Kafka and perhaps deserializing it and validating that it conforms to the schema) and processing it (interpreting the message). If the consumption is simple enough, being limited to no more instances consuming than there are partitions need not constrain.
One way to accomplish this is to have a Kafka consumption service which sends an HTTP request (perhaps through a load balancer or whatever) to a processing service which has arbitrarily many members.
Note that depending on what you're using Kafka for, there may be a requirement that certain messages always be in the same partition as one another in order to ensure that they get handled in a deterministic order (since ordering across partitions is not guaranteed). A typical example of this would be if the messages are change events for a particular record. If you're accomplishing this via some hash of the message key (or a portion of the key if using a custom partitioner), then simply changing the number of partitions might not be viable (you would need to introduce some sort of migration or have the producers know which records have to be routed to the old partitions and only route to the new partitions if the record has never been seen before).
We just started replacing messaging with Kafka.
In a traditional MQ there will be a cluster and 1orMQ will be there inside.
So the MQ cluster/co-ordinator service will deliver the message to clients.
Now there can be 10 services/clients which can consume message from single MQ.
So if there are 10 messages in MQ then each service/consumer/client can read/process 1 message
Now this case is not possible in Kafka which I understood now as per design
To achieve similar functionality in Kafka I have add equal or more number of partition as client/consumer/pods.
i am trying to make my head regarding Kafka consumers and I'd like to know if the following use case can be solved using Kafka.
My use case is basically this one:
I have a stream that I'd like to be consumed in sync by several consumers. In other words, I have a first consumer that starts to consume the stream, then another consumer arrives later. I'd like this second consumer to start to consume the stream at the offset where is currently the first consumer.
I know that I need to have the consumers in two different groups. But it is not clear for me :
on how or if it is possible to coordinate the groups offset
if I would expect a latency for such coordination task
You do not need two different groups, all consumers can check one topic. Or as many as they like, for that matter.
offset
Messages typically are identified by their arrival date, so all the clients need to tell the producer "my last visit was at 10:00, give me all new messages". So all each client needs to keep track of is when which individual topic was checked last.
latency
this is kind of "of scope" at this point. Of course there will be latency, but it depends on the environment, like "how many consumers", "how many topics", "message format" etc.
so can your usecase be solved using kafka
In short: yes. "Can one consumer continue where another has left", the consumers could exchange the latest index between each other, of course that would require some internal synchronization. Kafka itself does not care about consumers, so it will not keep track itself about the latest index. You need to do the work. Another possibility would be to actually consume the messages (like, delete them from queue once consumed), so each time another consumer hits the queue it is guaranteed to receive the messages another consumer left off. Of course that would depend on your usecase, can you actually delete your messages from the queue.
This is not a problematic treated by kafka directly (consumer group is to distribute partitions among members, not to attribute the same offset), but you can do somehting for this. You could simply create an other topic, where consumer1 would post either offset or copy of the message read (so you would need bth consumer and producer for this), and your other synchronized consumer would react against this - of course there ould be some latency for this.
What is your use case behind this? Why can't you consume at different offset? Couldn't you rather having one consumer, which would then dispatch the message read to to different processes, so that they are indeed synchronized? (with no latency)
What do you mean by synchronized: should consumer2 (and 3 and more) only consume the same message than consumer1 (ie can't consume faster, what I assume in both previous solution) While this is possible, it would really be better to know the reason behind this, maybe there is a better way for you to process data
We have an application that a consumer reads a message and the thread does a number of things, including database accesses before a message is produced to another topic. The time between consuming and producing the message on the thread can take several minutes. Once message is produced to new topic, a commit is done to indicate we are done with work on the consumer queue message. Auto commit is disabled for this reason.
I'm using the high level consumer and what I'm noticing is that zookeeper and kafka sessions timeout because it is taking too long before we do anything on consumer queue so kafka ends up rebalancing every time the thread goes back to read more from consumer queue and it starts to take a long time before a consumer reads a new message after a while.
I can set zookeeper session timeout very high to not make that a problem but then i have to adjust the rebalance parameters accordingly and kafka won't pickup a new consumer for a while among other side effects.
What are my options to solve this problem? Is there a way to heartbeat to kafka and zookeeper to keep both happy? Do i still have these same issues if i were to use a simple consumer?
It sounds like your problems boil down to relying on the high-level consumer to manage the last-read offset. Using a simple consumer would solve that problem since you control the persistence of that offset. Note that all the high-level consumer commit does is store the last read offset in zookeeper. There's no other action taken and the message you just read is still there in the partition and is readable by other consumers.
With the kafka simple consumer, you have much more control over when and how that offset storage takes place. You can even persist that offset somewhere other than Zookeeper (a data base, for example).
The bad news is that while the simple consumer itself is simpler than the high-level consumer, there's a lot more work you have to do code-wise to make it work. You'll also have to write code to access multiple partitions - something the high-level consumer does quite nicely for you.
I think issue is consumer's poll method trigger consumer's heartbeat request. And when you increase session.timeout. Consumer's heartbeat will not reach to coordinator. Because of this heartbeat skipping, coordinator mark consumer dead. And also consumer rejoining is very slow especially in case of single consumer.
I have faced a similar issue and to solve that I have to change following parameter in consumer config properties
session.timeout.ms=
request.timeout.ms=more than session timeout
Also you have to add following property in server.properties at kafka broker node.
group.max.session.timeout.ms =
You can see the following link for more detail.
http://grokbase.com/t/kafka/users/16324waa50/session-timeout-ms-limit
My understanding is that a Kafka producer sends messages to a cluster of Kafka brokers. My questions is, what is the behavior on the kafka producer during a network partition? If the partition is too long (and the volume too high), eventually messages are lost?
Also, if the system crashes during a partition, are all messages that are in the kafka queue lost?
Answered from Ludd's comment. According to the video in the link, they do not support spillage to disk in the event of a partition (or broker outage). There was mention of a "Go" client, that did such a thing that someone else wrote. No plans currently to work on this Producer capability; their focus presently is the cluster and the consumer.
The mentioned in the video that this isn't a priority for them, at least for some reason do to "laggy data". I suppose lots of use cases for Kafaka are real-time based, so if it happens that a producer is disconnected for several hours, getting a burst of data that is several hours old would be "odd".
Guess that makes sense, because then your consumers would have to deal with that laggy data somehow (i.e. it is an application concern).