How does a Kafka Sink connector ensure message ordering while fetching messages from partitions. I have multiple partitions and I have ensured message ordering while publishing of messages with hash-keys per partition.
Now, when more than one Sink Tasks(and their workers) are scaled from multiple JVMs with the responsibility to fetch messages from same partition and to notify a destination system via HTTP, how can I guarantee that the destination system will receive the messages in order.
Each sink task will receive the ordered events as available from their assigned topics, but as soon as it leaves the Kafka protocol handling, and is sent to a remote destination, whether that be a file or HTTP endpoint, order can only be guaranteed based upon that system's ordering semantics.
For example, if you're writing to Elasticsearch, you can "order" events (in Kibana) by specifying the timestamp field to index by. Similar for any (no)SQL database
A filesystem on the other hand, would order files by modification time, but events within any given file aren't guaranteed to be ordered (unless they come from one partition).
I find it unlikely an HTTP REST endpoint will be able to understand what order events need to be collected by, and that logic would need to be determined internally to that server endpoint. One option would be to post events to an endpoint that will accept the partition number, and the offset the record came from
Related
I have a streaming serving using kafka, where I receive data from multiple users and I want to process the data where each users data must be processed in sync manner where as different User's data data can be processed on async manner? Is there any standard pattern available for such scenarios or situations ?
You can achieve so, by using userId as the key while publishing the message to kafka.
Keys are used to ensure the messages published to kafka with a particular key are ordered by pushing them into a single partition.
And as each consumer is assigned one partition (in best case, i.e. there can't be any such case where one partition is shared among consumers), thus consumer would be consuming the data from partition in sequence it is pushed.
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).
Should I use the Kafka Consumer API or the Kafka Streams API for this use case? I have a topic with a number of consumer groups consuming off it. This topic contains one type of event which is a JSON message with a type field buried internally. Some messages will be consumed by some consumer groups and not by others, one consumer group will probably not be consuming many messages at all.
My question is:
Should I use the consumer API, then on each event read the type field and drop or process the event based on the type field.
OR, should I filter using the Streams API, filter method and predicate?
After I consume an event, the plan is to process that event (DB delete, update, or other depending on the service) then if there is a failure I will produce to a separate queue which I will re-process later.
Thanks you.
This seems more a matter of opinion. I personally would go with Streams/KSQL, likely smaller code that you would have to maintain. You can have another intermediary topic that contains the cleaned up data that you can then attach a Connect sink, other consumers, or other Stream and KSQL processes. Using streams you can scale a single application on different machines, you can store state, have standby replicas and more, which would be a PITA to do it all yourself.
I've been considering to use Apache Kafka as the event store in an event sourcing configuration. The published events will be associated to specific resources, delivered to a topic associated to the resource type and sharded into partitions by resource id. So for instance a creation of a resource of type Folder and id 1 would produce a FolderCreate event that would be delivered to the "folders" topic in a partition given by sharding the id 1 across the total number of partitions in the topic. Even though I don't know how to handle concurrent events that make the log inconsistent.
The simplest scenario would be having two concurrent actions that can invalidate each other such as one to update a folder and one to destroy that same folder. In that case the partition for that topic could end up containing the invalid sequence [FolderDestroy, FolderUpdate]. That situation is often fixed by versioning the events as explained here but Kafka does not support such feature.
What can be done to ensure the consistency of the Kafka log itself in those cases?
I think it's probably possible to use Kafka for event sourcing of aggregates (in the DDD sense), or 'resources'. Some notes:
Serialise writes per partition, using a single process per partition (or partitions) to manage this. Ensure you send messages serially down the same Kafka connection, and use ack=all before reporting success to the command sender, if you can't afford rollbacks. Ensure the producer process keeps track of the current successful event offset/version for each resource, so it can do the optimistic check itself before sending the message.
Since a write failure might be returned even if the write actually succeeded, you need to retry writes and deal with deduplication by including an ID in each event, say, or reinitialize the producer by re-reading (recent messages in) the stream to see whether the write actually worked or not.
Writing multiple events atomically - just publish a composite event containing a list of events.
Lookup by resource id. This can be achieved by reading all events from a partition at startup (or all events from a particular cross-resource snapshot), and storing the current state either in RAM or cached in a DB.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-2260 would solve 1 in a simpler way, but seems to be stalled.
Kafka Streams appears to provide a lot of this for you. For example, 4 is a KTable, which you can have your event producer use one to work out whether an event is valid for the current resource state before sending it.
Imagine a scenario where we have 3 partitions belonging to 3 different topics on a machine which runs a kafka process/broker. This broker will receive messages for all three partitions. It will store them on different log subdirectories. My question is how does the kafka broker schedule these writes? How does it decide which partition/topic will be written next?
For ordering over requests, the image below shows roughly, how the broker internally handles produce requests:
There is a number of network threads that pull bytes of the network layer and convert these to internal requests. These requests are then stuck in a fifo request queue, from where the io threads pull them and append the contained messages to the relevant partitions. So in short messages are processed in the order they are received in.
Looking through the code I am unsure, whether there may be potential for a race condition here, where a smaller request could "overtake" a large request that was sent immediately before it. However even if this were possible it is an extremely unlikely fringe case that I can't see ever occurring for a single producer. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the code can weigh in here?
As for ordering of batched messages in one request, the request stores messages internally in a HashMap, which uses TopicPartition as a key, since as far as I am aware a Scala HashMap does not preserve ordering of the inserted elements, I don't think that there are any guarantees around the order in which multiple partitions in one request get processed - which is fine, as ordering is only guaranteed to be preserved within the partition.
Within each partition, messages are processed in the order they were given to the producer before sending.