I want to change the communication between (micro)-services from REST to Kafka.
I'm not sure about the topics and wanted to hear some opinions about that.
Consider the following setup:
I have an API-Gateway that provides CRUD functions via REST for web applications. So I have 4 endpoints which users can call.
The API-Gateway will produce the request and consumes the responses from the second service.
The second service consumes the requests, access the database to execute the CRUD operations on the database and produces the result.
How many topics should I create?
Do I have to create 8 (2 per endpoint (request/response)) or is there a better way to do it?
Would like to hear some experience or links to talks / documentation on that.
The short answer for this question is; It depends on your design.
You can use only one topic for all your operations or you can use several topics for different operations. However you must know that;
Your have to produce messages to kafka in the order that they created and you must consume the messages in the same order to provide consistency. Messages that are send to kafka are ordered within a topic partition. Messages in different topic partitions are not ordered by kafka. Lets say, you created an item then deleted that item. If you try to consume the message related to delete operation before the message related to create operation you get error. In this scenario, you must send these two messages to same topic partition to ensure that the delete message is consumed after create message.
Please note that, there is always a trade of between consistency and throughput. In this scenario, if you use a single topic partition and send all your messages to the same topic partition you will provide consistency but you cannot consume messages fast. Because you will get messages from the same topic partition one by one and you will get next message when the previous message consumed. To increase throughput here, you can use multiple topics or you can divide the topic into partitions. For both of these solutions you must implement some logic on producer side to provide consistency. You must send related messages to same topic partition. For instance, you can partition the topic into the number of different entity types and you send the messages of same entity type crud operation to the same partition. I don't know whether it ensures consistency in your scenario or not but this can be an alternative. You should find the logic which provides consistency with multiple topics or topic partitions. It depends on your case. If you can find the logic, you provide both consistency and throughput.
For your case, i would use a single topic with multiple partitions and on producer side i would send related messages to the same topic partition.
--regards
Related
=== Assume everything from consumer point of view ===
I was reading couple of Kafka articles and I saw that the number of partitions is coupled to number of micro-service instances.... Ex: If I say 1topic 1partition for my serviceA.. Producer pushes message to topicT1, partitionP1, and from consumerSide(ServiceA1) I can read from t1,p1. If I spin new pod(ServiceA2) to have highThroughput then second instance will never receive any message because Kafka/ZooKeeper assigns id to each Consumer and partition1 is already taken by serviceA1. So serviceA2++ stays idle... To avoid such a hassle Kafka recommends to add more partition, so that number of consumers can be increased/decreased based on need.
I was also able to test through commandLine and service2 never consumed any message. If I shut service1 then service2 was able to pick new message... So if I spin more pod then FailSafe/Availability increases but throughput is same always...
Is my assumption is correct. Am I missing anything. Now I feel like any standard messaging will have the same problem...How to extend message-oriented systems itself.
Every topic has a partition, by default it comes with only one partition if you don't define the partition count value. In your case, you have a consumer group that consists of two consumers. Every consumer read the log from the partition. In your case, first consumer read the log from the first partition(we have the only partition), and for second consumer there will be no partition to the consumer the data so it become idle. Once first consumer gets down then only the second consumer starts reading the data from the first partition from the last committed offset.
Please check below blogs and videos. It explains the topic, consumer, and consumer group in kafka.
https://www.javatpoint.com/apache-kafka-consumer-and-consumer-groups
http://cloudurable.com/blog/kafka-architecture-consumers/index.html
https://docs.confluent.io/platform/current/clients/consumer.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAdG16KaHLs
I hope this will give you idea about the consumer and consumer group.
A broad solution to this is to decouple consumption of a message (i.e. receiving a message from Kafka and perhaps deserializing it and validating that it conforms to the schema) and processing it (interpreting the message). If the consumption is simple enough, being limited to no more instances consuming than there are partitions need not constrain.
One way to accomplish this is to have a Kafka consumption service which sends an HTTP request (perhaps through a load balancer or whatever) to a processing service which has arbitrarily many members.
Note that depending on what you're using Kafka for, there may be a requirement that certain messages always be in the same partition as one another in order to ensure that they get handled in a deterministic order (since ordering across partitions is not guaranteed). A typical example of this would be if the messages are change events for a particular record. If you're accomplishing this via some hash of the message key (or a portion of the key if using a custom partitioner), then simply changing the number of partitions might not be viable (you would need to introduce some sort of migration or have the producers know which records have to be routed to the old partitions and only route to the new partitions if the record has never been seen before).
We just started replacing messaging with Kafka.
In a traditional MQ there will be a cluster and 1orMQ will be there inside.
So the MQ cluster/co-ordinator service will deliver the message to clients.
Now there can be 10 services/clients which can consume message from single MQ.
So if there are 10 messages in MQ then each service/consumer/client can read/process 1 message
Now this case is not possible in Kafka which I understood now as per design
To achieve similar functionality in Kafka I have add equal or more number of partition as client/consumer/pods.
As part of design decision at my client site, the components(microservice) involved in http request-response flow are allowed to produce messsages on a kafka topic, but not allowed to consume messages from kafka topic.
Such components(microservice) can read & write database, can talk to other components, can produce messages on a topic, but cannot consume messages from a kafka topic.
Instead ,the design suggest to write separate utilities that consume messages from kafka topics and store in database. Components(microservice) involved in request-response flow, will read that information from database.
What are the design flaws, if such components(microservice) consume kafka topics? Why the design is suggesting to write separate utilities to consume kafka topic and store in database, so that components can read those information from database.
Kafka Topics are divided into partitions, and for each consumer group, the partitions are distributed among the various consumers in that group. Each consumer is responsible for consuming the messages in the partitions is gets assigned.
Presumably, your request handling machines are clustered and load balanced. There are two ways you might have those machines subscribe to Kafka topics, and both of those ways are broken:
You could put your request handling machines in different consumer groups. In this case, each one will have to consume all of the messages. That is probably not what you want, which is typically to have each consumer pull from the queue and have each message processed only once. Also, the consumers will be out of sync and will process the messages ad different rates.
You could put your request handling machines in the same consumer groups. In this case, each one will only have access to the partitions that it is assigned. Every machine will see different message streams. This, of course, is also not what you want. Clients would get different results depending on which machine the load balancer directed them to.
If you want all of your request handling machines to pull from the same queue of messages across the whole topic, then they need to communicate with a single consumer that is assigned all the partitions.
As Kafka has a topic based pub-sub architecture how can I handle One-to-One and Group Messaging part of web application using Kafka?
I am using SpringBoot+Angular stack and Docker Kafka server.
I'll write another answer here.
Based on my experience with the chatting service. You only need one topic for all the messages. Using a well designed Message body.
public class Message {
private String from; // user id
private String to; // user id or group id
}
Then you can create like 100 partitions for this topic and create two consumers to consume them (50 partitions for one consumer in the beginning).
Then if your system reaches the bottleneck, you can easier scale X more consumers to handle the load.
How to do distribute the messages in the consumer. I used to send the messages to the Mobile app, so all the app has a long-existing connection to the server, and the server sends the messages to the app by that channel. For group chat, I create a Redis cache to store all the active users in the group, so I can easier get the users who belong to this group, send them the messages.
And another thing, Kafka stateless, means Kafka doesn't de-coupled from the business logic, only acts as a message system, transfers the messages. If you connect your business logic to Kafka, like create a topic "One-to-One" and delete some after they finished, Kafka will be very messy.
By One-to-One, I suppose you mean one producer and one consumer i.e. using at as a queue.
This is certainly possible with Kafka. You can have one consumer subscribe to a topic and and restrict others by not giving them authorization . See Authorization in Kafka
Note that once a message is consumed, it is not deleted, rather it is committed so that the same consumer will not consume it again.
By Group Messaging, I suppose you mean one producer > multiple consumers or
multiple-producer > multiple-consumers
This is also possible, a producer can produce messages to a topic and multiple consumers can consume them.
If all the consumers have the same group id, then each consumer in the group gets only a subset of messages.
If they have different group ids then each consumer will get all messages.
Multiple producers also can produce to the same topic.
A consumer can also subscribe to multiple topics.
Ok, It's a very complicated question, I try to type some simple basic information.
Kafka topics are divided into a number of partitions. Partitions allow you to parallelize a topic by splitting the data in a particular topic across multiple brokers — each partition can be placed on a separate machine to allow for multiple consumers to read from a topic in parallel.
So if you are using partitions, means you have multiple consumers to consume some in parallel.
consumer groups for a given topic — each consumer within the group reads from a unique partition and the group as a whole consumes all messages from the entire topic.
Basically, you can have only one group, then the message will not be processed twice in the same consumer group, and this is how Kafka delivers exactly once.
If you need two consumer groups, you need to think about why you need two? Are the consumers in two groups handling the different logic?
There is more, please check the official document, or you can answer a smaller question.
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.
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.