Can I create topics called update_i for different kinds of updates and partition them using user_id in a Kafka MQ ? I've been through this post by confluent.io: https://www.confluent.io/blog/how-to-choose-the-number-of-topicspartitions-in-a-kafka-cluster/ . Also, I know that I cannot create a topic with dynamic number of partitions. These two facts (the post and static number of Kafka partitions). What's the delivery mechanism alternative ?
Can I create topics called update_i for different kinds of updates and partition them using user_id in a Kafka MQ ?
If I understand you correctly, the answer is Yes.
What you would need to do in a nutshell:
Topic configuration: Determine the required number of partitions for your topic(s). Usually, the number of partitions is determined based on (1) anticipated scale/volume of the incoming data, i.e. the Write-side of scaling, and/or (2) the required parallelism when consuming the messages for processing, i.e. the Read-side of scaling. See https://www.confluent.io/blog/how-to-choose-the-number-of-topicspartitions-in-a-kafka-cluster/ for details.
Writing messages to these Kafka topics (aka the side of the "Kafka producer"): In Kafka, messages are key-value pairs. In your case, you would set the message key to be the user_id. Then, when using Kafka's default "partitioner", messages for the same message key (here: user_id) would automatically be sent to the same partition -- which is what you want to achieve.
As a possible solution I would suggest to create a number of partitions, and then setup producers to select partition using the following rule
user_id mod <number_of_partitions>
That will allow you to keep order of messages for particular user_id.
Then, If you need to have a consumer that processes only messages for particular user_id, you can write a (low-level) consumer that will read a particular partition and process only messages that are sent for a particular customer and ignore all other messages.
Related
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.
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 am using kafka to stream the events of page visits by the website users to an analytics service. Each event will contain the following details for the consumer:
user id
IP address of the user
I need very high throughput, so I decided to partition the topic with partition key as userId-ipAddress
ie
For a userId 1000 and ip address 10.0.0.1, the event will have
partition key as "1000-10.0.0.1"
In this use case the partition key is dynamic, so specifying the number of partitions upfront while creating the topic.
Is it possible to create topic in kafka with dynamic partition count?
Is it a good practice to use this kind of partitioning or Is there any other way this can be achieved?
It's not possible to create a Kafka topic with dynamic partition count. When you create a topic you have to specify the number of partitions. You can change it later manually using Replication Tools.
But I don't understand why do you need dynamic partition count in the first place. The partition key is not related to the number of partitions. You can use your partition key with ten partitions or with thousand partitions. When you send a message to Kafka topic, Kafka must send it to a specific partition. Every partition is identify by it's ID which is simply a number. Kafka computes something like this
partition_id = hash(partition_key) % number_of_partition
and it sends the message to partition partition_id. If you have far more users than partitions you should be OK. More suggestions:
Use userId as a partition key. You probably don't need IP address as a part of partition key. What is it good for? Typically you need all messages from a single user to end up in a single partition. If you have IP address as a partition key then the messages from a single user could end up in multiple partitions. I don't know your use case but it general that's not what you want.
Measure how many partitions you need to process all messages. Then create let's say ten times more partitions. You can create more partitions than you actually need. Kafka won't mind and there are no performance penalties. See How to choose the number of topics/partitions in a Kafka cluster?
Right now you should be able to process all messages in your system. If traffic grows you can add more Kafka brokers and you can use Replication tools to change leaders/replicas for partitions. If the traffic grows more than ten times you must create new partitions.
As per Apache Kafka documentation, the order of the messages can be achieved within the partition or one partition in a topic. In this case, what is the parallelism benefit we are getting and it is equivalent to traditional MQs, isn't it?
In Kafka the parallelism is equal to the number of partitions for a topic.
For example, assume that your messages are partitioned based on user_id and consider 4 messages having user_ids 1,2,3 and 4. Assume that you have an "users" topic with 4 partitions.
Since partitioning is based on user_id, assume that message having user_id 1 will go to partition 1, message having user_id 2 will go to partition 2 and so on..
Also assume that you have 4 consumers for the topic. Since you have 4 consumers, Kafka will assign each consumer to one partition. So in this case as soon as 4 messages are pushed, they are immediately consumed by the consumers.
If you had 2 consumers for the topic instead of 4, then each consumer will be handling 2 partitions and the consuming throughput will be almost half.
To completely answer your question,
Kafka only provides a total order over messages within a partition, not between different partitions in a topic.
ie, if consumption is very slow in partition 2 and very fast in partition 4, then message with user_id 4 will be consumed before message with user_id 2. This is how Kafka is designed.
I decided to move my comment to a separate answer as I think it makes sense to do so.
While John is 100% right about what he wrote, you may consider rethinking your problem. Do you really need ALL messages to stay in order? Or do you need all messages for specific user_id (or whatever) to stay in order?
If the first, then there's no much you can do, you should use 1 partition and lose all the parallelism ability.
But if the second case, you might consider partitioning your messages by some key and thus all messages for that key will arrive to one partition (they actually might go to another partition if you resize topic, but that's a different case) and thus will guarantee that all messages for that key are in order.
In kafka Messages with the same key, from the same Producer, are delivered to the Consumer in order
another thing on top of that is, Data within a Partition will be stored in the order in which it is written therefore, data read from a Partition will be read in order for that partition
So if you want to get your messages in order across multi partitions, then you really need to group your messages with a key, so that messages with same key goes to same partition and with in that partition the messages are ordered.
In a nutshell, you will need to design a two level solution like above logically to get the messages ordered across multi partition.
You may consider having a field which has the Timestamp/Date at the time of creation of the dataset at the source.
Once, the data is consumed you can load the data into database. The data needs to be sorted at the database level before using the dataset for any usecase. Well, this is an attempt to help you think in multiple ways.
Let's consider we have a message key as the timestamp which is generated at the time of creation of the data and the value is the actual message string.
As and when a message is picked up by the consumer, the message is written into HBase with the RowKey as the kafka key and value as the kafka value.
Since, HBase is a sorted map having timestamp as a key will automatically sorts the data in order. Then you can serve the data from HBase for the downstream apps.
In this way you are not loosing the parallelism of kafka. You also have the privilege of processing sorting and performing multiple processing logics on the data at the database level.
Note: Any distributed message broker does not guarantee overall ordering. If you are insisting for that you may need to rethink using another message broker or you need to have single partition in kafka which is not a good idea. Kafka is all about parallelism by increasing partitions or increasing consumer groups.
Traditional MQ works in a way such that once a message has been processed, it gets removed from the queue. A message queue allows a bunch of subscribers to pull a message, or a batch of messages, from the end of the queue. Queues usually allow for some level of transaction when pulling a message off, to ensure that the desired action was executed, before the message gets removed, but once a message has been processed, it gets removed from the queue.
With Kafka on the other hand, you publish messages/events to topics, and they get persisted. They don’t get removed when consumers receive them. This allows you to replay messages, but more importantly, it allows a multitude of consumers to process logic based on the same messages/events.
You can still scale out to get parallel processing in the same domain, but more importantly, you can add different types of consumers that execute different logic based on the same event. In other words, with Kafka, you can adopt a reactive pub/sub architecture.
ref: https://hackernoon.com/a-super-quick-comparison-between-kafka-and-message-queues-e69742d855a8
Well, this is an old thread, but still relevant, hence decided to share my view.
I think this question is a bit confusing.
If you need strict ordering of messages, then the same strict ordering should be maintained while consuming the messages. There is absolutely no point in ordering message in queue, but not while consuming it. Kafka allows best of both worlds. It allows ordering the message within a partition right from the generation till consumption while allowing parallelism between multiple partition. Hence, if you need
Absolute ordering of all events published on a topic, use single partition. You will not have parallelism, nor do you need (again parallel and strict ordering don't go together).
Go for multiple partition and consumer, use consistent hashing to ensure all messages which need to follow relative order goes to a single partition.
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.