I'm considering Kafka as one of several technologies to serve as a message broker for worker nodes that will eventually send push notifications to users. An important constraint is that I don't want one tenant to monopolize resources such that it inserts a million notification messages and prevents other tenants from receiving their notifications in a reasonable time. In other words I want to each tenant to have their messages processed at about the same rate. My options seem to be either create a topic for each tenant or a partition for each tenant. Both seem problematic and/or frowned upon.
Creating a topic for each tenant seems like a logistical nightmare. Every time a new tenant gets added to the application the consumers would somehow have to be notified to subscribe to the topic.
Creating a partition for each tenant doesn't seem quite as bad but seems like it is frowned upon. However, based on my understanding of how load is distributed between partitions and consumers, if multiple tenants shared the same partition there is a possibility that one tenants messages will get stuck behind another's which is not how I want to balance the load.
What is my best option? Is there a third possibility I'm not considering? Is Kafka not the right tool for the job?
Thanks!
If you let multiple "tenants" share a partition, your fear of one tenant hijacking a partition might come true. In that case, you may have no choice other than to create topic per tenant. How could you address the administration?
You could set auto.create.topics.enable to true so that a tenant could create a topic just by sending message to it.
Registering dynamically created topics to consumers are not complicated if your topic names follow a pattern. Your consumers should subscribe to topics which matches the given pattern.
public void subscribe(java.util.regex.Pattern pattern)
Subscribe to all topics matching specified pattern to get dynamically assigned
partitions. The pattern matching will be done periodically against topics
existing at the time of check.
How quick the consumers can detect new topics is configurable using metadata.max.age.ms (default is 5 minutes)
If you are going to create thousands of topics, you might want to check the performance though (see)
One solution that i can think of is.. Assuming you are using AWS
[topic1] --> [kafka cosumer]
-->
[s3://bucket/tenant1] --> Listener --> nonjava-Lambda
[s3://bucket/tenant2] --> Listener --> nonjava-Lambda
[s3://bucket/tenant3] --> Listener --> nonjava-Lambda
on s3 have folders tenant wise. Configure s3 listener on the tenant folder level
On the topic have a kafka consumer which dumps a list of tenant messages into the tenant folder (so assume some files with 1 msg; some with 100 msgs)
Since kafka is super fast (20k 800bytes-msgs/sec can be dequeued) all you have to do is implement the s3 listener lambda (in go/ python/ nodejs; not java) and get the work done.
You may say that on high load the overall throughput may decrease significantly as we are involving writing to s3 (which is on average of 300 msgs/sec) ; But remember that you are writing in batches. Meaning by the time you complete the 1st write; and you have enough messages accumulated inthe topic which all go into 1 file in the next iteration of s3 write. So my wild guess the over all throughput may decrease but not worst-ly
Related
This is more of a design/architecture question.
We have a microservice A (MSA) with multiple instances (say 2) running of it behind LB.
The purpose of this microservice is to get the messages from Kafka topic and send to end users/clients. Both instances use same consumer group id for a particular client/user so as messages are not duplicated. And we have 2 (or =#instances) partitions of Kafka topic
End users/clients connect to LB to fetch the message from MSA. Long polling is used here.
Request from client can land to any instance. If it lands to MSA1, it will pull the data from kafka partion1 and if it lands to MSA2, it will pull the data from partition2.
Now, a producer is producing the messages, we dont have high messages count. So, lets say producer produce msg1 and it goes to partition1. End user/client will not get this message unless it's request lands to MSA1, which might not happen always as there are other requests coming to LB.
We want to solve this issue. We want that client gets the message near realtime.
One of the solution can be having a distributed persistent queue (e.g. ActiveMQ) where both MSA1 and MSA2 keep on putting the messages after reading from Kafka and client just fetch the message from queue. But this will cause separate queue for every end-user/client/groupid.
Is this a good solution, can we go ahead with this? Anything that we should change here. We are deploying our system on AWS, so if any AWS managed service can help here e.g. SNS+SQS combination?
Some statistics:
~1000 users, one group id per user
2-4 instances of microservice
long polling every few seconds (~20s)
average message size ~10KB
Broadly you have three possible approaches:
You can dispense with using Kafka's consumer group functionality and allow each instance to consume from all partitions.
You can make the instances of each service aware of each other. For example, an instance which gets a request which can be fulfilled by another instance will forward the request there. This is most effective if the messages can be partitioned by client on the producer end (so that a request from a given client only needs to be routed to an instance). Even then, the consumer group functionality introduces some extra difficulty (rebalances mean that the consumer currently responsible for a given partition might not have seen all the messages in the partition). You may want to implement your own variant of the consumer group coordination protocol, only on rebalance, the instance starts from some suitably early point regardless of where the previous consumer got to.
If you can't reliably partition by client in the producer (e.g. the client is requesting a stream of all messages matching arbitrary criteria) then Kafka is really not going to be a fit and you probably want a database (with all the expense and complexity that implies).
I have an API endpoint that accepts events with a specific user ID and some other data. I want those events broadcasted to some external locations and I wanted to explore using Kafka as a solution for that.
I have the following requirements:
Events with the same UserID should be delivered in order to the external locations.
Events should be persisted.
If a single external location is failing, that shouldn't delay delivery to other locations.
Initially, from some reading I did, it felt like I want to have N consumers where N is the number of external locations I want to broadcast to. That should fulfill requirement (3). I also probably want one producer, my API, that will push events to my Kafka cluster. Requirement (2) should come in automatically with Kafka.
I was more confused regarding how to model the internal Kafka cluster side of things. Again, from the reading I did, it sounds like it's a bad practice to have millions of topics, so having a single topic for each userID is not an option. The other option I read about is having one partition for each userID (let's say M partitions). That would allow requirement (1) to happen out of the box, if I understand correctly. But that would also mean I have M brokers, is that correct? That also sounds unreasonable.
What would be the best way to fulfill all requirements? As a start, I plan on hosting this with a local Kafka cluster.
You are correct that one topic per user is not ideal.
Partition count is not dependent upon broker count, so this is a better design.
If a single external location is failing, that shouldn't delay delivery to other locations.
This is standard consumer-group behavior, not topic/partition design.
As usual, it's bit confusing to see benefits of splitting methods over others.
I can't see the difference/Pros-Cons between having
Topic1 -> P0 and Topic 2 -> P0
over Topic 1 -> P0, P1
and a consumer pull from 2 topics or single topic/2 partitions, while P0 and P1 will hold different event types or entities.
Thee only benefit I can see if another consumer needs Topic 2 data then it's easy to consume
Regarding topic auto generation, any benefits behind that way or it will be out of hand after some time?
Thanks
I would say this decision depends on multiple factors;
Logic/Separation of Concerns: You can decide whether to use multiple topics over multiple partitions based on the logic you are trying to implement. Normally, you need distinct topics for distinct entities. For example, say you want to stream users and companies. It doesn't make much sense to create a single topic with two partitions where the first partition holds users and the second one holds the companies. Also, having a single topic for multiple partitions won't allow you to implement e.g. message ordering for users that can only be achieved using keyed messages (message with the same key are placed in the same partition).
Host storage capabilities: A partition must fit in the storage of the host machine while a topic can be distributed across the whole Kafka Cluster by partitioning it across multiple partitions. Kafka Docs can shed some more light on this:
The partitions in the log serve several purposes. First, they allow
the log to scale beyond a size that will fit on a single server. Each
individual partition must fit on the servers that host it, but a topic
may have many partitions so it can handle an arbitrary amount of data.
Second they act as the unit of parallelism—more on that in a bit.
Throughput: If you have high throughput, it makes more sense to create different topics per entity and split them into multiple partitions so that multiple consumers can join the consumer group. Don't forget that the level of parallelism in Kafka is defined by the number of partitions (and obviously active consumers).
Retention Policy: Message retention in Kafka works on partition/segment level and you need to make sure that the partitioning you've made in conjunction with the desired retention policy you've picked will support your use case.
Coming to your second question now, I am not sure what is your requirement and how this question relates to the first one. When a producer attempts to write a message to a Kafka topic that does not exist, it will automatically create that topic when auto.create.topics.enable is set to true. Otherwise, the topic won't get created and your producer will fail.
auto.create.topics.enable: Enable auto creation of topic on the server
Again, this decision should be dependent on your requirements and the desired behaviour. Normally, auto.create.topics.enable should be set to false in production environments in order to mitigate any risks.
Just adding some things on top of Giorgos answer:
By choosing the second approach over the first one, you would lose a lot of features that Kafka offers. Some of the features may be: data balancing per brokers, removing topics, consumer groups, ACLs, joins with Kafka Streams, etc.
I think that this flag can be easily compared with automatically creating tables in your database. It's handy to do it in your dev environments but you never want it to happen in production.
Let's say I have a Kafka cluster with several topics spread over several partitions. Also, I have a cluster of applications act as clients for Kafka. Each application in that cluster has a client that is subscribed to a same set of topics, which is identical over the whole cluster. Also, each of these clients share same Kafka group ID.
Now, speaking of commit mode. I really do not want to specify offset manually, but I do not want to use autocommit either, because I need to do some handing after I receive my data from Kafka.
With this solution, I expect to occur "same data received by different consumers" problem, because I do not specify offset before I do reading (consuming), and I read data concurrently from different clients.
Now, my question: what are the solutions to get rid of multiple reads? Several options coming to my mind:
1) Exclusive (sequential) Kafka access. Until one consumer committed read, no other consumers access Kafka.
2) Somehow specify offset before each reading. I do not even know how to do that with assumption that read might fail (and offset will not be committed) - we gonna need some complicated distributed offset storage.
I'd like to ask people experienced with Kafka to recommend something to achieve behavior I need.
Every partition is consumed only by one client - another client with the same group ID won't get access to that partition, so concurrent reads won't occur...
One of the first things I think about when using a new service (such as a non-RDBMS data store or a message queue) is: "How should I structure my data?".
I've read and watched some introductory materials. In particular, take, for example, Kafka: a Distributed Messaging System for Log Processing, which writes:
"a Topic is the container with which messages are associated"
"the smallest unit of parallelism is the partition of a topic. This implies that all messages that ... belong to a particular partition of a topic will be consumed by a consumer in a consumer group."
Knowing this, what would be a good example that illustrates how to use topics and partitions? When should something be a topic? When should something be a partition?
As an example, let's say my (Clojure) data looks like:
{:user-id 101 :viewed "/page1.html" :at #inst "2013-04-12T23:20:50.22Z"}
{:user-id 102 :viewed "/page2.html" :at #inst "2013-04-12T23:20:55.50Z"}
Should the topic be based on user-id? viewed? at? What about the partition?
How do I decide?
When structuring your data for Kafka it really depends on how it´s meant to be consumed.
In my mind, a topic is a grouping of messages of a similar type that will be consumed by the same type of consumer so in the example above, I would just have a single topic and if you´ll decide to push some other kind of data through Kafka, you can add a new topic for that later.
Topics are registered in ZooKeeper which means that you might run into issues if trying to add too many of them, e.g. the case where you have a million users and have decided to create a topic per user.
Partitions on the other hand is a way to parallelize the consumption of the messages. The total number of partitions in a broker cluster need to be at least the same as the number of consumers in a consumer group to make sense of the partitioning feature. Consumers in a consumer group will split the burden of processing the topic between themselves according to the partitioning so that one consumer will only be concerned with messages in the partition itself is "assigned to".
Partitioning can either be explicitly set using a partition key on the producer side or if not provided, a random partition will be selected for every message.
Once you know how to partition your event stream, the topic name will be easy, so let's answer that question first.
#Ludd is correct - the partition structure you choose will depend largely on how you want to process the event stream. Ideally you want a partition key which means that your event processing is partition-local.
For example:
If you care about users' average time-on-site, then you should partition by :user-id. That way, all the events related to a single user's site activity will be available within the same partition. This means that a stream processing engine such as Apache Samza can calculate average time-on-site for a given user just by looking at the events in a single partition. This avoids having to perform any kind of costly partition-global processing
If you care about the most popular pages on your website, you should partition by the :viewed page. Again, Samza will be able to keep a count of a given page's views just by looking at the events in a single partition
Generally, we are trying to avoid having to rely on global state (such as keeping counts in a remote database like DynamoDB or Cassandra), and instead be able to work using partition-local state. This is because local state is a fundamental primitive in stream processing.
If you need both of the above use-cases, then a common pattern with Kafka is to first partition by say :user-id, and then to re-partition by :viewed ready for the next phase of processing.
On topic names - an obvious one here would be events or user-events. To be more specific you could go with with events-by-user-id and/or events-by-viewed.
This is not exactly related to the question, but in case you already have decided upon the logical segregation of records based on topics, and want to optimize the topic/partition count in Kafka, this blog post might come handy.
Key takeaways in a nutshell:
In general, the more partitions there are in a Kafka cluster, the higher the throughput one can achieve. Let the max throughout achievable on a single partition for production be p and consumption be c. Let’s say your target throughput is t. Then you need to have at least max(t/p, t/c) partitions.
Currently, in Kafka, each broker opens a file handle of both the index and the data file of every log segment. So, the more partitions, the higher that one needs to configure the open file handle limit in the underlying operating system. E.g. in our production system, we once saw an error saying too many files are open, while we had around 3600 topic partitions.
When a broker is shut down uncleanly (e.g., kill -9), the observed unavailability could be proportional to the number of partitions.
The end-to-end latency in Kafka is defined by the time from when a message is published by the producer to when the message is read by the consumer. As a rule of thumb, if you care about latency, it’s probably a good idea to limit the number of partitions per broker to 100 x b x r, where b is the number of brokers in a Kafka cluster and r is the replication factor.
I think topic name is a conclusion of a kind of messages, and producer publish message to the topic and consumer subscribe message through subscribe topic.
A topic could have many partitions. partition is good for parallelism. partition is also the unit of replication,so in Kafka, leader and follower is also said at the level of partition. Actually a partition is an ordered queue which the order is the message arrived order. And the topic is composed by one or more queue in a simple word. This is useful for us to model our structure.
Kafka is developed by LinkedIn for log aggregation and delivery. this scene is very good as a example.
The user's events on your web or app can be logged by your Web sever and then sent to Kafka broker through the producer. In producer, you could specific the partition method, for example : event type (different event is saved in different partition) or event time (partition a day into different period according your app logic) or user type or just no logic and balance all logs into many partitions.
About your case in question, you can create one topic called "page-view-event", and create N partitions through hash keys to distribute the logs into all partitions evenly. Or you could choose a partition logic to make log distributing by your spirit.