I've read the stateful stream processing overview and if I understand correctly, one of the main reasons why the RocksDB is being used as a default implementation of the key value store is a fact, that unlike in-memory collections, it can handle data larger than the available memory, because it can flush to disk. Both types of stores can survive application restarts, because the data is backed up as a Kafka topic.
But are there other differences? For example, I've noticed that my persistent state store creates some .log files for each topic partition, but they're all empty.
In short, I'm wondering what are the performance benefits and possible risks of replacing persistent stores with in-memory ones.
I've got a very limited understanding of the internals of Kafka Streams and the different use cases of state stores, esp. in-memory vs persistent, but what I managed to learn so far is that a persistent state store is one that is stored on disk (and hence the name persistent) for a StreamTask.
That does not give much as the names themselves in-memory vs persistent may have given the same understanding, but something that I found quite refreshing was when I learnt that Kafka Streams tries to assign partitions to the same Kafka Streams instances that had the partitions assigned before (a restart or a crash).
That said, an in-memory state store is simply recreated (replayed) every restart which takes time before a Kafka Streams application is up and running while a persistent state store is something already materialized on a disk and the only time the Kafka Streams instance has to do to re-create the state store is to load the files from disk (not from the changelog topic that takes longer).
I hope that helps and I'd be very glad to be corrected if I'm wrong (or partially correct).
I don't see any real reason to swap current RocksDB store. In fact RocksDB one of the fastest k,v store:
Percona benchmarks (based on RocksDB)
with in-memory ones - RocksDB already acts as in-memory with some LRU algorithms involved:
RocksDB architecture
The three basic constructs of RocksDB are memtable, sstfile and logfile. The memtable is an in-memory data structure - new writes are inserted into the memtable and are optionally written to the logfile.
But there is one more noticeable reason for choosing this implementation:
RocksDB source code
If you will look at source code ratio - there are a lot of Java api exposed from C++ code. So, it's much simpler to integrate this product in existing Java - based Kafka ecosystem with comprehensive control over store, using exposed api.
Related
I'm new in Kafka Streams world. I'm wondering when to use Kafka Streams GlobalKTable (with compacted topic under the hood) instead of regular database for persisting data. And what are advantages and disadvantages of both solution. I guess both ensure data persistence on the same level.
Let's say there is an simple e-commerce app having users registering and updating their data. And there are two microservices - first one (service-users) is responsible for registering users and the second one (service-orders) is responsible for placing orders. And now there are two options:
When new user registers, service-user accepts request, save newly registered user data in it's database (SQL or noSQL, doesn't matter) and then send event to Kafka to propagate this to other services. service-orders receives such event and store necessary user data in it's own database. It's like a most common pattern (from my experience).
and now the second approach with GlobalKTable:
When new user registers or update, service-user accepts request and send event with user data snapshot to Kafka. service-user and service-orders use GlobalKTable to read information about users.
When should I use which solution? Which solution is better in which cases? What are advantages and disadvantages of both approaches? Doesn't the second approach breaks the rule 'each microservice should maintain it's own data in it's own database'?
Hope I explained my considerations well and they make sense at all.
In general the adventages of GlobalKTable are:
You can do a Foreign-Key Join to GlobalKTable
Application has a full data set in memory, the data set is automatically loaded during application startup and all data modifications are automatically synchronized across all instance. Comparing it to the architecture with external database, you don't need to communicate (via network) with any other resource (like relational database) during messages processing, so it is obvious that processing is much faster and as a result you can process large amount of data quickly. When you'd like to achieve similar performance of processing, you need implement by your own some kind of in memory cache (like Guava) and then, you need to solve all issues connected with proper caching management - warming, refreshing, evicting.
And the main disadvantages are:
Application has a full data set in memory, it is advantage but it can be very big issue, all depends on, how big is your data set, or how you model your data. Referring to your example, storing all users orders in GlobalKTable sounds like very bad idea, the data set will grow very fast, and the size of data is growing with time, so after few months/years of running application on production, the data set can has gigabytes and it will continuously grow. When we still like to store orders in GlobalKTable to efficent processing, we need to desing our data model differently. Probalby our entities (Orders, Documents etc) has some life cycle, like: new, paid, closed etc., few of them are terminating - I mean, there will be no further processing on entity with given id, (for example closed Order), so if there will be no processing, there is no need to store data in memory, we can forward it to some other storage, like Elasticsearch and remove it from GlobalKTable. We can name our data set with orders during processing hot storage and data set with terminated orders cold storage. Long story short: having only active/hot Orders in GlobalKTable could be a good idea.
Quering GlobalKTable is limited to iterating over all data set, sub set or getting data by record key, or key composed with timestamp
Processing based on state in external database is broadly used for many years, so, many developers know how to evolve and maintain that kind of applications. We cannot say the same of storing state in Kafka compacted topics.
I have an application which requires an interesting orchestration between states of instances distributed across geographic regions, in combination with the need for a scalable distributed database.
At the moment I think that Kafka with log compaction will fit my needs for state maintenance and message exchange between instances, and Cassandra will fit my needs for high volume distributed reads and writes of persisted data.
However, there is quite a lot of data duplicated that way: Many of the data exchanged via Kafka would also need to be stored to Cassandra for distributed data access. Using Kafka for both messaging and distributed data querying and persistence seems tempting.
Therefore, I'm interested to figure out the real-world pros and cons to be expected when using e.g. the pull queries feature of Kafka to use it as a distributed database [1].
Though, I'm a bit suspicious about what to expect of that in terms of performance and scalability, especially when compared to Cassandra, as well as unknown pitfalls.
What are the tradeoffs when using Kafka as a distributed DB, and what would it compare performance-wise to "native" distributed systems like Cassandra?
[1] https://www.confluent.io/de-de/blog/pull-queries-in-preview-confluent-cloud-ksqdb/
pure KV lookups
Then Kafka StateStores / Interactive Queries can work, but with the caveat that if you use containers and an orchestrator, you need to maintain the state of those stores somewhere on persistent volumes. Otherwise, when the containers move to a fresh host, the streams changelog topic needs to be read from the very beginning, giving you a "cold-start" problem, and you will be unable to query.
Using any database (with persistent storage) will not have this problem, and will always be able to query immediately.
I'm not sure I would suggest Cassandra for strictly KV data, though.
I am trying to evaluate if kafka stream with rocksdb state store and be used in production with 500 million message in the changelog (state topic).
Use case
I have about 8 different topic's data I about, that are owned by different teams, from the these topic I care about certain data point, so I am using rocksdb to hold the state of the object, to which I add the required data from different topic.
Has kafka stream with state store being used this way ?
You can always use the State store to store millions of keys. It requires the disk storage to store all the entries as #cricket007 also mentioned. As states are flushed to the file system.
Usually millions of keys causes the storage or memory issues. As long as you have storage available, it will work.Also, you need to make sure that states are not in memory.
On a personal experience, I have around 100 millions of keys in several state stores, I ran into disk space problem first but after adding more disks, it works fine.
Also, you can read more about Capacity planning to get some fair idea :
https://docs.confluent.io/current/streams/sizing.html
Event sourcing means a 180 degree shift in the way many of us have been architecting and developing web applications, with lots of advantages but also many challenges.
Apache Kafka is an awesome platform that through its Apache Kafka Streams API is advertised as a tool that allows us to implement this paradimg through its many features (decoupling, fault tolerance, scalability...): https://www.confluent.io/blog/event-sourcing-cqrs-stream-processing-apache-kafka-whats-connection/
On the other hand there are some articles discouraging us from using it for event sourcing: https://medium.com/serialized-io/apache-kafka-is-not-for-event-sourcing-81735c3cf5c
These are my questions regarding Kafka Streams suitability as an event sourcing plaftorm:
The article above comes from Jesper Hammarbäck (who works for serialized.io, an event sourcing platform). I would like to get an answer to the main problems he brings up:
Loading current state. In my view with log compaction and state stores it's not a problem. Am I right?
Consistent writes.
When moving certain pieces of functionality into Kafka Streams I'm not sure if they do fit naturally:
Authentication & Security: Imagine your customers are stored in a state store generated from a customer-topic. Should we keep their passwords in the topic/store? It doesn't sound safe enough, does it? Then how are we supposed to manage this aspect of having customers on a state store and their passwords somewhere else? Any recommended good practice?
Queries: Interactive queries are a nice tool to generate queriable views of our data (by key). That's ok to get an entity by id but what about complex queries (joins)? Do we need to generate state stores per query? For instance one store for customers by id, another one for customers by state, another store for customers who purchased a product last year... It doesn't sound manageable. Another point is the lack of pagination: how can we handle big sets of data when querying the state stores? One more point, we can’t do dynamic queries (like JPA criteria API) anymore. This leads to CQRS maybe? Complexity keeps growing this way...
Data growth: with databases we are used to have thousands and thousands of rows per table. Kafka Streams applications keep a local state store that will grow and grow over time. How scalable is that? How is that local storage kept (local disk/RAM)? If it's disk we should provision applications with enough space, if it's RAM enough memory.
Loading Current State: The mechanism described in the blog, about re-reacting current state ad-hoc for a single entity would indeed be costly with Kafka. However Kafka Streams follow the philosophy to keep the current state for all object in a KTable (that is distributed/sharded). Thus, it's never required to do this -- of course, it come with certain memory costs.
Kafka Streams parallelized based on different events. Thus, all interactions for a single event (processing, state updates) are performed by a single thread. Thus, I don't see why there should be inconsistent writes.
I am not sure what the exact requirement would be. In the current implementation, Kafka Streams does not offer any store specific authentication or security features. There are several things one could do for security though: (a) encrypt the local disk: this might be the simplest thing to do to protect data. (2) encrypt messages within the business logic, before you put them into the store.
Interactive Queries offers limited support for many reasons (don't want to go into details) and it was never design with the goal to support complex queries. The idea is about eager computation of result what can be retrieved with simple lookups. As you pointed out, this is not very scalable (cost intensive) if you have a lot of different queries. To tackle this, it would make sense to load the data into a database, and let the DB does what it is build for. Kafka Streams alone is not the right tool for this atm -- however, there is no reason to not combine both.
Per default Kafka Streams uses RocksDB to keep local state (you can switch to in-memory stores, too). Thus, it's possible to write to disk and to use very large state. Of course, you need to provision your instances accordingly (cf: https://docs.confluent.io/current/streams/sizing.html). Besides this, Kafka Streams scales horizontally and is fully elastic. Thus, you can add new instances at any point in time allowing you to hold terra-bytes of state if you have large disks and enough instances. Note, that the number of input topic partitions limit the number of instances you can use (internally, Kafka Streams is a consumer group, and you cannot have more instances than partitions). If this is a concern, it's recommended to over-partition the input topics in the first place.
I am using kafka_2.10-0.10.0.1. I have two questions:
- I want to know how I can modify the default configuration of Kafka to process large amount of data with good performance.
- Is it possible to configure Kafka to process the records in memory without storing in disk?
thank you
Is it possible to configure Kafka to process the records in memory without storing in disk?
No. Kafka is all about storing records reliably on disk, and then reading them back quickly off of disk. In fact, its documentation says:
As a result of taking storage seriously and allowing the clients to control their read position, you can think of Kafka as a kind of special purpose distributed filesystem dedicated to high-performance, low-latency commit log storage, replication, and propagation.
You can read more about its design here: https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#design. The implementation section is also quite interesting: https://kafka.apache.org/documentation/#implementation.
That said, Kafka is also all about processing large amounts of data with good performance. In 2014 it could handle 2 million writes per second on three cheap instances: https://engineering.linkedin.com/kafka/benchmarking-apache-kafka-2-million-writes-second-three-cheap-machines. More links about performance:
https://docs.confluent.io/current/kafka/deployment.html
https://www.confluent.io/blog/optimizing-apache-kafka-deployment/
https://community.hortonworks.com/articles/80813/kafka-best-practices-1.html
https://www.cloudera.com/documentation/kafka/latest/topics/kafka_performance.html