I am considering Kafka to stream updates from the back-end to the front-end applications.
- Data streams are specific to a user requests, so each request will generate a stream in the back-end.
- Each user will have multiple concurrent requests. One to many relationship btw user and streams
I first thought I would setup a topic "per user request" but learnt that hundreds of thousands of topics is bad for multiple reasons.
Reading online, I came across posts that suggest one topic partitioned on userid. How is that any better than multiple topics?
If partitioning on userid is the way to go, the consumer will receive updates for different requests (from that user) and that will cause issues. I need to be able to not process a stream until I choose to, and if each request had it own topic this will work out great.
Thoughts?
I don't think Kafka will be a good option for your use case. As your use case is somewhat "synchronous" and "dynamic" in nature. A user request is submitted and the client wait for the stream of response events, the client should also know when the response for a particular user request ends. Multiple user requests may end up in the same Kafka partition as we cannot afford to have an exclusive partition for each user when number of users is high.
I guess Redis may be a better use case for this use case. Every request can have an unique id, and response events are added to a Redis list with some reasonable expiry time. The Redis list is given the same key name as the request id.
Redis list will look like (key is request id):
request id --> response even1, response event2,...... , response end evnt
The process which is relaying the event to the client will delete the list after it successfully sends all the response event to the client and the "last response event marker" is encountered. If the relaying process dies before it can delete the response, Redis will take care of deleting the list after the list's expiry time.
Although it is possible (I guess) to have a Kafka cluster of several thousends topics, I'm not sure it is the way to go in your particular case.
Usually you design your Kafka app around streams of data: like click-streams, page-views etc. Then, if you want some kind of "sticky" processors - you need partition key. In your case, if you select user id as a key, Kafka will store all events from an user to the same partition.
Kafka consumer, on the other side, read messages from 1 to all partitions of a topic. That means, if say, you have a topic with 10 partitions, you can start your Kafka consumer in a consumer group so every consumer has a distinct partitions assigned.
It means, for the user id example, all users will be processed by the exactly one consumer depending on the key. For example, userid A goes to partition 1, but userid B goes to partition 10.
Again, you can use message key in order to map your data stream to Kafka partitions. All events with the same key will be stored to the same partition and will be consumed/processed by the same consumer instance.
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 a ecommerce like system which produces user events of different kind .
I need to store them in kafka for asynch data analysis. I want events for specific users goes to one queue partition so that consumers gets all messages
on one partition . This won't be dedicated queue for a user. Which means single partition can store the data for multiple customer. Not sure how
I can achieve it in kafka ?
To send messages of specific users to the same partition, you can use the key= parameter of producer's send method. You can set this parameter to a byte encoded value which must be unique.
For example, in Python:
producer.send("topic", json.dumps(msg).encode()), key=str(user_id).encode())
This will ensure that messages concerning a given user will be pushed into the same topic's partition.
#zebra8844 answer is correct. The same key will always go to the same partition unless you increase the number of partitions in the future then this will not be the case. So just keep this in mind for future.
I have an application where events are sent on a Kafka topic based on user actions like User Login, user's Intermediate actions (optional) and User Logout. Each event has some information in a event object along with userId , for example a Login Event has loginTime; Add Note has notes (Intermediate actions). Similarly a Logout event has logoutTime. The requirement is to aggregate information from all these events into one object after receiving the Logout event for each user & send it on downstream.
Due to some reasons (Network delay, multiple event producer) events may not come in order (User Logout event may come before Intermediate event), So the question is how to handle such scenarios? I can not wait for Intermediate events after receiving User Logout event since Intermediate events are optional depending on user's actions.
The only option which I think here, is to wait for some time after receiving User Logout event, process Intermediate events if received within that wait time & send processed event, but again not sure how to achieve this.
Kafka does not guarantee order on topic, it guarantee order on partition. One topic can have more than one partition so every consumer that is consuming your topic will consume one partition. That is how kafka is achieving scalability. So what you are experiencing is normal behavior (it isn't bug or related to network delay or something like that). What you can do is to make sure that all messages that you want to proceed in order are sent to the same partition. You can do that by setting number of partitions to 1, that is the dumbest way. When you send message with producer, by default kafka take a look into key, take hash of it and by that hash know on which partition should send a message. You can make sure that for all messages, the key is the same. That way all hashes of keys will be the same and all messages will go to the same partition. Also, you can implement custom partitioner and override default way how kafka choose on which partition message will go. In this way, all messages will arrive in order. If you cannot do any of this actions, then you will receive events out of order and you will have to think about a way how to consume them out of order but that is not question related to kafka.
If you are not able to preserve order of event (that Logout will be last event),
you can achieve your requirements using ProcesorApi from Kafka Streams. Kafka Streams DSL can be combine with Processor API (more details here).
You can have several partitions, but all events for particular user has to be send to same Partition.
You have to implement custom Processor/Transformer.
Your processor will be put each event/activity in state store (aggregate all event from particular user under same key).
Processor API gives you ability to create some kind of scheduler (Punctuator).
You can schedule to check every X seconds events for particular user. If Logout was long ago, you get all events/activities and make some aggregation and send results to downstreams.
As said in other answers, in Kafka order is maintained on per-partition basis.
Since you are talking about user events, why don't you make UserID as your Kafka topic key? So, that all events related to a specific user will always be ordered (provided they are produced by a single producer).
You should ensure (by design) that only one Kafka producer pushes all the user change events to the given topic. In this way, you can avoid out-of order messages due to multiple producers.
From streams, you might also want to look at Windows in Kafka streams. Tumbling windows for example is non-overlapping and fixed size. You aggregate records over a period of time.
Now you may want to sort the aggregated by their timestamp (or you said you have logout time, login time etc) and act accordingly.
Simple and effective solution
Use synchronous send and set delivery.timeout.ms and retries to a maximum value.
To ensure fault tolerance set acks=all with min.insync.replicas=2 (topic configuration) and use a single producer to push to that topic.
You should also set max.block.ms to some max value so that your send() does not return immediately if there is an error in fetching the metadata (for example, when Kafka is down).
Benchmark the synchronous send with your rate and check to see if it meets your requirements or benchmark number.
This ensures that a message that came first is sent first to Kafka and then the next message is not sent until the previous message is successfully acknowledged.
If your benchmark figure is not met, try having a back-pressure
mechanism like in-memory/persistent queue.
Add event to a queue in Thread-1
Peek (not dequeue) event from the queue in Thread-2
Call producer.send(...).get() in Thread-2
Dequeue the event in Thread-2
The key is to make your frontend tracker to send ordered events to the backend service which then produces events to kafka.
You can achieve that by batching the events, and sending the batched events to the backend only after the previous batched events are successfully delivered.
I'm trying to implement a request/reply pattern with Kafka. I am working with named services and unnamed clients that send messages to those services, and clients may expect a reply. Many (10s-100s) of clients may interact with a single service, or consumer group of services.
Strategy one: filtering messages
The first thought was to have two topics per service - the "HelloWorld" service would consume the "HelloWorld" topic, and produce replies back to the "HelloWorld-Reply" topic. Clients would consume that reply topic and filter on unique message IDs to know what replies are relevant to them.
The drawback there is it seems like it might create unnecessary work for clients to filter out a potentially large amount of irrelevant messages when many clients are interacting with one service.
Strategy two: ephemeral topics
The second idea was to create a unique ID per client, and send that ID along with messages. Clients would consume their own unique topic "[ClientID]" and services would send to that topic when they have a reply. Clients would thus not have to filter irrelevant messages.
The drawback there is clients may have a short lifespan, e.g. they may be single use scripts, and they would have to create their topic beforehand and delete it afterward. There might have to be some extra process to purge unused client topics if a client dies during processing.
Which of these seems like a better idea?
We are using Kafka in production as a handler for event based messages and request/response messages. our approach to implementing request/response is your first strategy because, when the number of clients grows, you have to create many topics which some of them are completely useless. another reason for choosing the first strategy was our topic naming guideline that each service should belong to only one topic for tacking. however, Kafka is not made for request/response messages but I recommend the first strategy because:
few numbers of topics
better service tracking
better topic naming
but you have to be careful about your consumer groups. which may causes of data loss.
A better approach is using the first strategy with many partitions in one topic (service) that each client sends and receives its messages with a unique key. Kafka guarantees that all messages with the same key will go to a specific partition. this approach doesn't need filtering irrelevant messages and maybe is a combination of your two strategies.
Update:
As #ValBonn said in the suggested approach you always have to be sure that the number of partitions >= number of clients.
I'm trying to replace rabbit mq with apache-kafka and while planning, I bumped in to several conceptual planning problem.
First we are using rabbit mq for per user queue policy meaning each user uses one queue. This suits our need because each user represent some job to be done with that particular user, and if that user causes a problem, the queue will never have a problem with other users because queues are seperated ( Problem meaning messages in the queue will be dispatch to the users using http request. If user refuses to receive a message (server down perhaps?) it will go back in retry queue, which will result in no loses of message (Unless queue goes down))
Now kafka is fault tolerant and failure safe because it write to a disk.
And its exactly why I am trying to implement kafka to our structure.
but there are problem to my plannings.
First, I was thinking to create as many topic as per user meaning each user would have each topic (What problem will this cause? My max estimate is that I will have around 1~5 million topics)
Second, If I decide to go for topics based on operation and partition by random hash of users id, if there was a problem with one user not consuming message currently, will the all user in the partition have to wait ? What would be the best way to structure this situation?
So as conclusion, 1~5 millions users. We do not want to have one user blocking large number of other users being processed. Having topic per user will solve this issue, it seems like there might be an issue with zookeeper if such large number gets in (Is this true? )
what would be the best solution for structuring? Considering scalability?
First, I was thinking to create as many topic as per user meaning each user would have each topic (What problem will this cause? My max estimate is that I will have around 1~5 million topics)
I would advise against modeling like this.
Google around for "kafka topic limits", and you will find the relevant considerations for this subject. I think you will find you won't want to make millions of topics.
Second, If I decide to go for topics based on operation and partition by random hash of users id
Yes, have a single topic for these messages and then route those messages based on the relevant field, like user_id or conversation_id. This field can be present as a field on the message and serves as the ProducerRecord key that is used to determine which partition in the topic this message is destined for. I would not include the operation in the topic name, but in the message itself.
if there was a problem with one user not consuming message currently, will the all user in the partition have to wait ? What would be the best way to structure this situation?
This depends on how the users are consuming messages. You could set up a timeout, after which the message is routed to some "failed" topic. Or send messages to users in a UDP-style, without acks. There are many ways to model this, and it's tough to offer advice without knowing how your consumers are forwarding messages to your clients.
Also, if you are using Kafka Streams, make note of the StreamPartitioner interface. This interface appears in KStream and KTable methods that materialize messages to a topic and may be useful in a chat applications where you have clients idling on a specific TCP connection.