We are using processors with exactly-once delivery (committing consumer offset through producer) and need to understand whether it is possible for this to happen when consuming a message from a topic in kafka-cluster-1 and producing to a topic on kafka-cluster-2 (and vice-versa).
This is a snippet from the transactional processor:
messageProducer.beginTransaction(partitionId)
resultPublisher.publish(partitionId, resultTopic, messageRecord.key(), result)
val offsetAndMetadata = messageConsumer.getUncommittedOffsets(listenTopic, messageRecord)
messageProducer.sendOffsetsToTransaction(partitionId, offsetAndMetadata, consumerGroupId)
messageProducer.commitTransaction(partitionId)
My understanding is that a the producer will try to commit the offset on a consumer topic in the same cluster.
I did some research but can't really find anything related to multiple clusters.
Is it possible at all?
It is possible, you can "manually" send offsets to your own topic on the same cluster, where the produced message is sent. This way you can use guarantees provided by transactions.
You would need to create your own topic for offsets, similar to Kafka's internal __consumer_offsets, where as key you should use groupId, topic, partition, and as value the most recent offset (already read or to be read). Remember to use log compaction.
AFAIK there is no possibility to have transaction across two different clusters.
Related
How does the pubsub work in Kafka?
I was reading about Kafka Topic-Partition theory, and it mentioned that In one consumer group, each partition will be processed by one consumer only. Now there are 2 cases:-
If the producer didn't mention the partition key or message key, the message will be evenly distributed across the partitions of a specific topic. ---- If this is the case, and there can be only one consumer(or subscriber in case of PubSub) per partition, how does all the subscribers receive the similar message?
If I producer produced to a specific partition, then how does the other consumers (or subscribers) receive the message?
How does the PubSub works in each of the above cases? if only a single consumer can get attached to a specific partition, how do other consumers receive the same msg?
Kafka prevents more than one consumer in a group from reading a single partition. If you have a use-case where multiple consumers in a consumer group need to process a particular event, then Kafka is probably the wrong tool. Otherwise, you need to write code external to Kafka API to transmit one consumer's events to other services via other protocols. Kafka Streams Interactive Query feature (with an RPC layer) is one example of this.
Or you would need lots of unique consumers groups to read the same event.
Answer doesn't change when producers send data to a specific partitions since "evenly distributed" partitions are still pre-computed, as far as the consumer is concerned. The consumer API is assigned to specific partitions, and does not coordinate the assignment with any producer.
I am implementing Exactly-once semantics for a simple data pipeline, with Kafka as message broker. I can force Kafka producer to write each produced record exactly once by setting set enable.idempotence=true.
However, on the consumption front I need to guarantee that the consumer reads each record exactly once (I am not interested in storing the consumed records to external system or to another Kafka topic just processing). To achieve this, I have to ensure that polled records are processed and their offsets are committed to __consumer_offsets topic atomically/transactionally (both succeed/fail together).
In such case do I need to resort to Kafka transaction APIs to create a transactional producer in the consumer polling loop, where inside the transaction I perform: (1) processing of the consumed records and (2) committing their offsets, before closing the transaction. Would the normal commitSync/commitAsync serve in such case?
"on the consumption front I need to guarantee that the consumer reads each record exactly once"
The answer from Gopinath explains well how you can achieve exactly-once between a KafkaProducer and KafkaConsumer. These configurations (together with the application of Transaction API in the KafkaProducer) guarantees that all data send by the producer will be stored in Kafka exactly once. However, it does not guarantee that the Consumer is reading the data exactly once. This, of course, depends on your offset management.
Anyway, I understand your question that you want to know how the Consumer itself is processing a consumed message exactly once.
For this you need to manage your offsets on your own in a atomic way. That means, you need build your own "transaction" around
fetching data from Kafka,
processing data, and
storing processed offsets externally.
The methods commitSync and commitAsync will not get you far here as they can only ensure at-most-once or at-least-once processing within the Consumer. In addition, it is beneficial that your processing is idempotent.
There is a nice blog that explains such an implementation making use of the ConsumerRebalanceListener and storing the offsets in your local file system. A full code example is also provided.
"do I need to resort to Kafka transaction APIs to create a transactional producer in the consumer polling loop"
The Transaction API is only available for KafkaProducers and as far as I am aware cannot be used for your offset management.
'Exactly-once' functionality in Kafka can be achieved by a combination of these 3 settings:
isolation.level = read_committed
transactional.id = <unique_id>
processing.guarantee = exactly_once
More information on enabling the exactly-once functionality:
https://www.confluent.io/blog/simplified-robust-exactly-one-semantics-in-kafka-2-5/
https://www.confluent.io/blog/exactly-once-semantics-are-possible-heres-how-apache-kafka-does-it/
In order to consume data from Kafka, we can have multiple consumers on a topic, totally decoupled. Then, what is meant by no shared consumption on the page(https://streaml.io/blog/pulsar-streaming-queuing) which shares differences between kafka and pulsar?
In his blog, Sijie is referring to shared messaging as queuing. With queuing messaging, multiple consumers are created to receive messages from a single topic. Which consumer gets the message is completely random.
The issue with implementing the messaging pattern with Kafka lies in way that Kafka consumers mark that they’ve consumed a message. Kafka consumers use what’s called a high watermark for consumer offsets. That means that a consumer can only say, “I’ve processed up to this point” rather than, “I’ve processed this message.”
Consider the scenario in which multiple Kafka consumers from the same consumer group were processing from the same topic partition and one of the consumers fails due to an exception while the other succeed. Because Kafka does not a have a built-in way to only acknowledge a single message, and only uses a high-water mark, the failed message would be erronously marked as consumed when in fact it failed and needs to be either reprocessed or published to an error queue, etc.
In order to avoid this situation, you would need to have just a single consumer per partition which limits the comsumption throughput of the topic. Which in turn requires you to increase the number of partitions in order to meet your throughput needs.
There is a detailed explanation in this blog post
We have a business process/workflow that is being started when initial event message is received and closed when the last message is processed. We have up to 100,000 processes executed each day. My problem is that the order of the messages that come to specific process has to be processed by the same order messages were received. If one of the messages fails, the process has to freeze until the problem is fixed, despite that all other processes has to continue. For this kind of situation i am thinking of using Kafka. first solution that came to my mind was to use Topic partitioning by message key. The key of the message would be the ProcessId. This way i could be sure that all process messages would be partitioned and kafka would guarantee the order. As i am new to Kafka what i managed to figure out that partitions has to be created in advance and that makes everything to difficult. so my questions are:
1) when i produce message to kafka's topic that does not exist, the topic is created on runtime. Is it possible to have same behavior for topic partitions?
2) there can be more than 100,000 active partitions on the topic, is that a problem?
3) can partition be deleted after all messages from that topic were read?
4) maybe you can suggest other approaches to my problem?
When i produce message to kafka's topic that does not exist, the topic is created on runtime. Is it possible to have same behavior for topic partitions?
You need to specify number of partitions while creating topic. New Partitions won't be create automatically(as is the case with topic creation), you have to change number of partitions using topic tool.
More Info: https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#basic_ops_modify_topi
As soon as you increase number of partitions, producer and consumer will be notified of new paritions, thereby leading them to rebalance. Once rebalanced, producer and consumer will start producing and consuming from new partition.
there can be more than 100,000 active partitions on the topic, is that a problem?
Yes, having this much partitions will increase overall latency.
Go through how-choose-number-topics-partitions-kafka-cluster on how to decide number of partitions.
can partition be deleted after all messages from that topic were read?
Deleting a partition would lead to data loss and also the remaining data's keys would not be distributed correctly so new messages would not get directed to the same partitions as old existing messages with the same key. That's why Kafka does not support decreasing partition count on topic.
Also, Kafka doc states that
Kafka does not currently support reducing the number of partitions for a topic.
I suppose you choose wrong feature to solve you task.
In general, partitioning is used for load balancing.
Incoming messages will be distributed on given number of partition according to the partitioning strategy which defined at broker start. In short, default strategy just calculate i=key_hash mod number_of_partitions and put message to ith partition. More about strategies you could read here
Message ordering is guaranteed only within partition. With two messages from different partitions you have no guarantees which come first to the consumer.
Probably you would use group instead. It's option for consumer
Each group consumes all messages from topic independently.
Group could consist of one consumer or more if you need it.
You could assign many groups and add new group (in fact, add new consumer with new groupId) dynamically.
As you could stop/pause any consumer, you could manually stop all consumers related to specified group. I suppose there is no single command to do that but I'm not sure. Anyway, if you have single consumer in each group you could stop it easily.
If you want to remove the group you just shutdown and drop out related consumers. No actions on broker side is needed.
As a drawback you'll get 100,000 consumers which read (single) topic. It's heavy network load at least.
I'm managing a kafka queue using a common consumer group across multiple machines. Now I also need to show the current content of the queue. How do I read only those messages within the group which haven't been read, yet making those messages again readable by other consumers in the group which actually processes those messages. Any help would be appreciated.
In Kafka, the notion of "reading" messages from a topic and that of "consuming" them are the same thing. At a high level, the only thing that makes a "consumed" message unavailable to a consumer is that consumer setting its read offset to a value beyond that of the message in question. Thus, you can turn off the autocommit feature of your consumers and avoid committing offsets in cases where you'd like only to "read" but not to "consume".
A good proxy for getting "all messages which haven't been read" is to compare the latest committed offset to the highwater mark offset per partition. This provides a notion of "lag" that indicates how far behind a given consumer is in its consumption of a partition. The fetch_consumer_lag CLI function in pykafka is a good example of how to do this.
In Kafka, a partition can be consumed by only one consumer in a group i.e. if your topic has 10 partitions and you spawned 20 consumers with same groupId, then only 10 will be connected to Kafka and remaining 10 will be sitting idle. A new consumer will be identified by Kafka only in case one of the existing consumer dies or does not poll from the topic.
AFAIK, I don't think you can do what I understand you want to do within a consumer group. You can obviously create another groupId and process message based on the information gathered by first consumer group.
Kafka now has a KStream.peek() method
See proposal "Add KStream peek method".
It's not 100% clear to me from the docs that this prevents consuming of message that's peeked from the topic, but I can't see how you could use it in any crash-safe, robust way unless it does.
See also:
Handling consumer rebalance when implementing synchronous auto-offset commit
High-Level Consumer and peeking messages
I think that you can use publish-subscribe model. Then each consumer has own offset and could consume all messages for itself.