Does scaling Kafka Connect is same as scaling Kafka Consumer? - apache-kafka

We need to pull data from Kafka and write into AWS s3. The Kafka is managed by separate department and we have access to only specific topic.
Based on Kafka documentation it looks like Kafka Connect is easy solution for me because I don't have any custom message processing logic.
Normally when we run Kafka Consumer we can run multiple JVM with same consumer group for scalability. The consumer JVM of specific consumer can run in same physical server or different. What would be the case when I want to use Kafka Connect?
Let's say I have 20 partitions of the topic.
How can I run Kafka Connect with 20 instances?
Can I have multiple instances of Kafka Connect running on the same physical instance?

Kafka Connect handles balancing the load across all its workers. In your example of 20 nodes, you could have : (for example)
1 Kafka Connect worker, processing 20 partitions
5 Kafka Connect workers, each processing 4 partitions
20 Kafka Connect workers, each processing 1 partition
It depends on your volumes and required throughput.
To run Kafka Connect in Distributed mode across multiple nodes, follow the instructions here and make sure you give them all the same group.id which identifies them as members of the same cluster (and thus eligible for sharing workload of tasks out across them). More config details for distributed mode here.
Even if you're running Kafka Connect on a single node, I would personally recommend running it in Distributed mode as it makes scale-out more simple (you just add additional nodes, but the execution & config remains the same).
I'm don't see a benefit in running multiple Kafka Connect workers on a single node. Each Kafka Connect worker can run multiple tasks, and connectors, as required.

My understanding is that if you only have a single machine, you should only launch one kafka connect instance, and configure the tasks.max property to the amount of parallelism you'd like to achieve (in your example 20 might be good). This should allow kafka connect to read from your partitions in parallel, see the docs for this here.
You could launch multiple instances on the same machine in theory. It makes sense to do this if you need each instance to consume data from different topics. But if you want the instances to consume data from the same topic, I don't think doing this would benefit you. Using separate threads within the same process with tasks.max will give you the same if not better performance.
If you want kafka connect to run on multiple machines and read data from the same topic it is possible to run in distributed mode.

Related

How does distribution mechanism works when Kafka runs locally?

How does distribution mechanism works when Kafka runs locally? Please tell the disadvantages too.
If you only run one broker locally, you have a single point of failure and no processing is truly distributed
If you have multiple brokers on the same machine, and you mount different volumes for each broker process logs, you'd end up with distributed storage + fault tolerance, but still no distributed processing
In either case, you can create as many topics as you want with many partitions, but you can only set the replication factor of the topics to be the number of active brokers
Multiple consumer processes are also able to run fine on a single machine, but you'd get more throughput by separating brokers and consumers across several physical machines (more cpu available, and different network interfaces)

Why my Kafka connect sink cluster only has one worker processing messages?

I've recently setup a local Kafka on my computer for testing and development purposes:
3 brokers
One input topic
Kafka connect sink between the topic and elastic search
I managed to configure it in standalone mode, so everything is localhost, and the Kafka connect was started using ./connect-standalone.sh script.
What I'm trying to do now is to run my connectors in distributed mode, so the Kafka messages can be separated into both workers.
I've started the two workers (still everything on the same machine), but when I send message to my Kafka topic, only one worker (the last started) is processing messages.
So my question is: Why only one worker is processing Kafka messages instead of both ?
When I kill one of the worker, the other one takes the message flow back, so I think the cluster is well setup.
What I think:
I don't put Keys inside my Kafka messages, can it be related to this ?
I'm running everything in localhost, does distributed mode can work this way ? (I've correctly configure specific unique field such as ret.port)
Resolved:
From Kafka documentation:
The division of work between tasks is shown by the partitions that each task is assigned
If you don't use partition (push all messages in same partition), workers won't be able to divide messages.
You don't need to use message keys, you can just push your messages to different partition in a cyclic way.
See: https://docs.confluent.io/current/connect/concepts.html#distributed-workers

Running a single kafka s3 sink connector in standalone vs distributed mode

I have a kafka topic "mytopic" with 10 partitions and want to use S3 sink connector to sink records to an S3 bucket. For scaling purposes it should be running on multiple nodes to write partitions data in parallel to the same S3 bucket.
In Kafka connect user guide and actually many other blogs/tutorials it's recommended to run workers in distributed mode instead of standalone to achieve better scalability and fault tolerance:
... distributed mode is more flexible in terms of scalability and offers the added advantage of a highly available service to minimize downtime.
I want to figure out which mode to choose for my use case: having one logical connector running on multiple nodes in parallel. My understanding is following:
If I run in distributed mode, I will end up having only 1 worker processing all the partitions, since it's considered one connector task.
Instead I should run in standalone mode in multiple nodes. In that case I will have a consumer group and achieve parallel processing of partitions.
In above described standalone scenario I will actually have fault tolerance: if one instance dies, the consumer group will rebalance and other standalone workers will handle the freed partitions.
Is my understaning correct or am I missing something?
Unfortunately I couldn't find much information on this topic other than this google groups discussion, where the author came to the same conclusion as I did.
In theory, that might work, but you'll end up ssh-ing to multiple machines, having basically the same config files, and just not using the connect-distributed command instead of connect-standalone.
You're missing the part about Connect server task rebalancing, though, which communicates over the Connect server REST ports
The underlying task code is all the same, only the entrypoint and offset storage are different. So, why not just use distributed if you have multiple machines?
You don't need to run, multiple instances of standalone processes, the Kafka workers are taking care of distributing the tasks, rebalancing, offset management under the distributed mode, you need to specify the same group id ...

multiple connectors in kafka to different topics are going to same node

I have created two kafka connectors in kafka-connect which use the same Connector class but have different topics they listen to.
When I launch the process on my node, both the connectors end up creating tasks on this process. However, I would like one node to only handle one connector/topic. How can I limit a topic/connector to a single node? I don't see any configuration in connect-distributed.properties where a process could specify which connector to use.
Thanks
Kafka Connect in distributed mode can run as a cluster of one or more workers. Each worker can run multiple tasks. Depending on how many connectors and workers you are running, you will have tasks running on the same worker. This is deliberate - the idea is that Kafka Connect will manage your tasks and workload for you, across the available workers.
If you want to isolate your processing you can run Kafka Connect as separate Connect clusters, either on the same machine (make sure to use different REST ports), or separate machines.
For more info, see architecture and config for steps to configure separate clusters. Note that a cluster can actually be a single worker, but then you don't have any redundancy in the event of failure.

Kafka Producer, multi DC failover support

I have two distinct kafka clusters located in different data centers - DC1 and DC2. How to organize kafka producer failover between two DCs? If primary kafka cluster (DC1) becomes unavailable, I want producer to switch to failover kafka cluster (DC2) and continue publishing to it? Producer also should be able to switch back to primary cluster, once it is available. Any good patterns, existing libs, approaches, code examples?
Each partition of the Kafka topic your producer is publishing to has a separate leader, often spread across multiple brokers in the cluster, so the producer is connected to many “primary” brokers simultaneously. Should any one of them fail another In Sync Replica (ISR) will be elected as leader and automatically take over. You do not need to do anything in your client app for it to reconnect to the new leader(s), retry any failed requests, and continue.
If this is for Multi-Data Center (MDC) failover then things get much more complicated depending on if the client apps die as well or if they keep running and need just their cluster connections to failover. Offsets are not preserved across multiple Kafka clusters so while producers are simpler, consumers need to call GetOffsetsForTimes() upon failover.
For a great write up of the the MDC failover modes and best practices see the MDC Whitepaper here: https://www.confluent.io/white-paper/disaster-recovery-for-multi-datacenter-apache-kafka-deployments/
Since you asked only about producers, your app can detect if the primary cluster is down (say for a certain number of retries) and then instead of attempting to reconnect, it can instead connect to another brokerlist from the secondary cluster. Alternatively you can redirect the dns name of the brokerlist hosts to point to the secondary cluster.