I am kafka newbie and as I was reading the docs, I had this design related question related to kafka consumer.
A kafka consumer reads messages from the kafka stream which is made up
of one or more partitions from one or more servers.
Lets say one of the incoming messages is corrupt and as a result the consumer fails to process. But when processing event logs you don't want to drop any events, as a result you do infinite retries to avoid transient errors during processing. In such cases of infinite retries, how can the consumer move forward. Is there a way to blacklist this message for next retry?
I'd think it needs manual intervention. Where we log some message metadata (don't know what exactly yet) to look at which message is failing and have logic in place where each consumer checks redis (or someplace else?) after n reties to see if this message needs to be skipped. The blacklist doesn't have to be stored forever in the redis either, only until the consumer can skip it. Here's a pseudocode of what i just described:
while (errorState) {
if (msg in blacklist) {
//skip
commitOffset()
} else {
errorState = processMessage(msg);
if (!errorState) {
commitOffset();
} else {
// log this msg so that we can add to blacklist
logger.info(msg)
}
}
}
I'd like to hear from more experienced folks to see if there are better ways to do this.
We had a requirement in our project where the processing of an incoming message to update a record was dependent on the record being present. Due to some race condition, sometimes update arrived before the insert. In such cases, we implemented couple of approaches.
A. Manual retry with a predefined delay. The code checks if the insert has arrived. If so, processing goes as normal. Otherwise, it would sleep for 500ms, then try again. This would repeat 10 times. At the end, if the message is still not processed, the code logs the message, commits the offset and moves forward. The processing of message is always done in a thread from a pool, so it doesn't block the main thread either. However, in the worst case each message would take 5 seconds of application time.
B. Recently, we refined the above solution to use a message scheduler based on kafka. So now if insert has not arrived before the update, system sends it to a separate scheduler which operates on kafka. This scheduler would replay the message after some time. After 3 retries, we again log the message and stop scheduling or retrying. This gives us the benefit of not blocking the application threads and manage when we would like to replay the message again.
Related
I am trying to implement an event driven architecture to handle distributed transactions. Each service has its own database and uses Kafka to send messages to inform other microservices about the operations.
An example:
Order service -------> | Kafka |------->Payment Service
| |
Orders MariaDB DB Payment MariaDB Database
Order receives an order request. It has to store the new Order in its DB and publish a message so that Payment Service realizes it has to charge for the item:
private OrderBusiness orderBusiness;
#PostMapping
public Order createOrder(#RequestBody Order order){
logger.debug("createOrder()");
//a.- Save the order in the DB
orderBusiness.createOrder(order);
//b. Publish in the topic so that Payment Service charges for the item.
try{
orderSource.output().send(MessageBuilder.withPayload(order).build());
}catch(Exception e){
logger.error("{}", e);
}
return order;
}
These are my doubts:
Steps a.- (save in Order DB) and b.- (publish the message) should be performed in a transaction, atomically. How can I achieve that?
This is related to the previous one: I send the message with: orderSource.output().send(MessageBuilder.withPayload(order).build()); This operations is asynchronous and ALWAYS returns true, no matter if the Kafka broker is down. How can I know that the message has reached the Kafka broker?
Steps a.- (save in Order DB) and b.- (publish the message) should be
performed in a transaction, atomically. How can I achieve that?
Kafka currently does not support transactions (and thus also no rollback or commit), which you'd need to synchronize something like this. So in short: you can't do what you want to do. This will change in the near-ish future, when KIP-98 is merged, but that might take some time yet. Also, even with transactions in Kafka, an atomic transaction across two systems is a very hard thing to do, everything that follows will only be improved upon by transactional support in Kafka, it will still not entirely solve your issue. For that you would need to look into implementing some form of two phase commit across your systems.
You can get somewhat close by configuring producer properties, but in the end you will have to chose between at least once or at most once for one of your systems (MariaDB or Kafka).
Let's start with what you can do in Kafka do ensure delivery of a message and further down we'll dive into your options for the overall process flow and what the consequences are.
Guaranteed delivery
You can configure how many brokers have to confirm receipt of your messages, before the request is returned to you with the parameter acks: by setting this to all you tell the broker to wait until all replicas have acknowledged your message before returning an answer to you. This is still no 100% guarantee that your message will not be lost, since it has only been written to the page cache yet and there are theoretical scenarios with a broker failing before it is persisted to disc, where the message might still be lost. But this is as good a guarantee as you are going to get.
You can further reduce the risk of data loss by lowering the intervall at which brokers force an fsync to disc (emphasized text and/or flush.ms) but please be aware, that these values can bring with them heavy performance penalties.
In addition to these settings you will need to wait for your Kafka producer to return the response for your request to you and check whether an exception occurred. This sort of ties into the second part of your question, so I will go into that further down.
If the response is clean, you can be as sure as possible that your data got to Kafka and start worrying about MariaDB.
Everything we have covered so far only addresses how to ensure that Kafka got your messages, but you also need to write data into MariaDB, and this can fail as well, which would make it necessary to recall a message you potentially already sent to Kafka - and this you can't do.
So basically you need to choose one system in which you are better able to deal with duplicates/missing values (depending on whether or not you resend partial failures) and that will influence the order you do things in.
Option 1
In this option you initialize a transaction in MariaDB, then send the message to Kafka, wait for a response and if the send was successful you commit the transaction in MariaDB. Should sending to Kafka fail, you can rollback your transaction in MariaDB and everything is dandy.
If however, sending to Kafka is successful and your commit to MariaDB fails for some reason, then there is no way of getting back the message from Kafka. So you will either be missing a message in MariaDB or have a duplicate message in Kafka, if you resend everything later on.
Option 2
This is pretty much just the other way around, but you are probably better able to delete a message that was written in MariaDB, depending on your data model.
Of course you can mitigate both approaches by keeping track of failed sends and retrying just these later on, but all of that is more of a bandaid on the bigger issue.
Personally I'd go with approach 1, since the chance of a commit failing should be somewhat smaller than the send itself and implement some sort of dupe check on the other side of Kafka.
This is related to the previous one: I send the message with:
orderSource.output().send(MessageBuilder.withPayload(order).build());
This operations is asynchronous and ALWAYS returns true, no matter if
the Kafka broker is down. How can I know that the message has reached
the Kafka broker?
Now first of, I'll admit I am unfamiliar with Spring, so this may not be of use to you, but the following code snippet illustrates one way of checking produce responses for exceptions.
By calling flush you block until all sends have finished (and either failed or succeeded) and then check the results.
Producer<String, String> producer = new KafkaProducer<>(myConfig);
final ArrayList<Exception> exceptionList = new ArrayList<>();
for(MessageType message : messages){
producer.send(new ProducerRecord<String, String>("myTopic", message.getKey(), message.getValue()), new Callback() {
#Override
public void onCompletion(RecordMetadata metadata, Exception exception) {
if (exception != null) {
exceptionList.add(exception);
}
}
});
}
producer.flush();
if (!exceptionList.isEmpty()) {
// do stuff
}
I think the proper way for implementing Event Sourcing is by having Kafka be filled directly from events pushed by a plugin that reads from the RDBMS binlog e.g using Confluent BottledWater (https://www.confluent.io/blog/bottled-water-real-time-integration-of-postgresql-and-kafka/) or more active Debezium (http://debezium.io/). Then consuming Microservices can listen to those events, consume them and act on their respective databases being eventually consistent with the RDBMS database.
Have a look here to my full answer for a guideline:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/43607887/986160
I know that it is possible to consume a SQS queue using multiple threads. I would like to guarantee that each message will be consumed once. I know that it is possible to change the visibility timeout of a message, e.g., equal to my processing time. If my process spend more time than the visibility timeout (e.g. a slow connection) other thread can consume the same message.
What is the best approach to guarantee that a message will be processed once?
What is the best approach to guarantee that a message will be processed once?
You're asking for a guarantee - you won't get one. You can reduce probability of a message being processed more than once to a very small amount, but you won't get a guarantee.
I'll explain why, along with strategies for reducing duplication.
Where does duplication come from
When you put a message in SQS, SQS might actually receive that message more than once
For example: a minor network hiccup while sending the message caused a transient error that was automatically retried - from the message sender's perspective, it failed once, and successfully sent once, but SQS received both messages.
SQS can internally generate duplicates
Simlar to the first example - there's a lot of computers handling messages under the covers, and SQS needs to make sure nothing gets lost - messages are stored on multiple servers, and can this can result in duplication.
For the most part, by taking advantage of SQS message visibility timeout, the chances of duplication from these sources are already pretty small - like fraction of a percent small.
If processing duplicates really isn't that bad (strive to make your message consumption idempotent!), I'd consider this good enough - reducing chances of duplication further is complicated and potentially expensive...
What can your application do to reduce duplication further?
Ok, here we go down the rabbit hole... at a high level, you will want to assign unique ids to your messages, and check against an atomic cache of ids that are in progress or completed before starting processing:
Make sure your messages have unique identifiers provided at insertion time
Without this, you'll have no way of telling duplicates apart.
Handle duplication at the 'end of the line' for messages.
If your message receiver needs to send messages off-box for further processing, then it can be another source of duplication (for similar reasons to above)
You'll need somewhere to atomically store and check these unique ids (and flush them after some timeout). There are two important states: "InProgress" and "Completed"
InProgress entries should have a timeout based on how fast you need to recover in case of processing failure.
Completed entries should have a timeout based on how long you want your deduplication window
The simplest is probably a Guava cache, but would only be good for a single processing app. If you have a lot of messages or distributed consumption, consider a database for this job (with a background process to sweep for expired entries)
Before processing the message, attempt to store the messageId in "InProgress". If it's already there, stop - you just handled a duplicate.
Check if the message is "Completed" (and stop if it's there)
Your thread now has an exclusive lock on that messageId - Process your message
Mark the messageId as "Completed" - As long as this messageId stays here, you won't process any duplicates for that messageId.
You likely can't afford infinite storage though.
Remove the messageId from "InProgress" (or just let it expire from here)
Some notes
Keep in mind that chances of duplicate without all of that is already pretty low. Depending on how much time and money deduplication of messages is worth to you, feel free to skip or modify any of the steps
For example, you could leave out "InProgress", but that opens up the small chance of two threads working on a duplicated message at the same time (the second one starting before the first has "Completed" it)
Your deduplication window is as long as you can keep messageIds in "Completed". Since you likely can't afford infinite storage, make this last at least as long as 2x your SQS message visibility timeout; there is reduced chances of duplication after that (on top of the already very low chances, but still not guaranteed).
Even with all this, there is still a chance of duplication - all the precautions and SQS message visibility timeouts help reduce this chance to very small, but the chance is still there:
Your app can crash/hang/do a very long GC right after processing the message, but before the messageId is "Completed" (maybe you're using a database for this storage and the connection to it is down)
In this case, "Processing" will eventually expire, and another thread could process this message (either after SQS visibility timeout also expires or because SQS had a duplicate in it).
Store the message, or a reference to the message, in a database with a unique constraint on the Message ID, when you receive it. If the ID exists in the table, you've already received it, and the database will not allow you to insert it again -- because of the unique constraint.
AWS SQS API doesn't automatically "consume" the message when you read it with API,etc. Developer need to make the call to delete the message themselves.
SQS does have a features call "redrive policy" as part the "Dead letter Queue Setting". You just set the read request to 1. If the consume process crash, subsequent read on the same message will put the message into dead letter queue.
SQS queue visibility timeout can be set up to 12 hours. Unless you have a special need, then you need to implement process to store the message handler in database to allow it for inspection.
You can use setVisibilityTimeout() for both messages and batches, in order to extend the visibility time until the thread has completed processing the message.
This could be done by using a scheduledExecutorService, and schedule a runnable event after half the initial visibility time. The code snippet bellow creates and executes the VisibilityTimeExtender every half of the visibilityTime with a period of half the visibility time. (The time should to guarantee the message to be processed, extended with visibilityTime/2)
private final ScheduledExecutorService scheduler = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
ScheduledFuture<?> futureEvent = scheduler.scheduleAtFixedRate(new VisibilityTimeExtender(..), visibilityTime/2, visibilityTime/2, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
VisibilityTimeExtender must implement Runnable, and is where you update the new visibility time.
When the thread is done processing the message, you can delete it from the queue, and call futureEvent.cancel(true) to stop the scheduled event.
I have a use case where i consume certain logs from a queue and hit some third party API's with some info from that log , in case the third party system is not responding properly i wish to implement a retry logic for that particular log .
I can add a time field and repush the message to the same queue and this message will get again consumed if its time field is valid i.e less than current time and if not then get pushed again into queue.
But this logic will add same log again and again until retry time is correct and the queue will grow unnecessarily.
Is there is better way to implement retry logic in Kafka ?
You can create several retry topics and push failed task there. For instance you can create 3 topics with different delays in mins and rotate the single failed task till the max attempt limit reached.
‘retry_5m_topic’ — for retry in 5 minutes
‘retry_30m_topic’ — for retry in 30 minutes
‘retry_1h_topic’ — for retry in 1 hour
See more for details: https://blog.pragmatists.com/retrying-consumer-architecture-in-the-apache-kafka-939ac4cb851a
In consumer, if it throws an exception, produce another message with attempt number 1. so next time when it is consumed, it has the property of attempt no 1. Handle it in the producer that, if it attempts more than your retry count, then stop producing it.
Yes, this could be one straight solution that I also thought of. But with this, we will end up in creating many topics as it is possible that message processing will fail again.
I solved this problem by mapping this use case to Rabbit MQ. In rabbit MQ we have the concept of retry exchange where if a message processing fails from an exchange then u can send it to a retry exchange with a TTL. Once TTL gets expired the message will move back to the main exchange and is ready to be processed again.
I can post some examples explaining how we can implement an exponential backoff message processing using Rabbit MQ.
I need to choose a new Queue broker for my new project.
This time I need a scalable queue that supports pub/sub, and keeping message ordering is a must.
I read Alexis comment: He writes:
"Indeed, we think RabbitMQ provides stronger ordering than Kafka"
I read the message ordering section in rabbitmq docs:
"Messages can be returned to the queue using AMQP methods that feature
a requeue
parameter (basic.recover, basic.reject and basic.nack), or due to a channel
closing while holding unacknowledged messages...With release 2.7.0 and later
it is still possible for individual consumers to observe messages out of
order if the queue has multiple subscribers. This is due to the actions of
other subscribers who may requeue messages. From the perspective of the queue
the messages are always held in the publication order."
If I need to handle messages by their order, I can only use rabbitMQ with an exclusive queue to each consumer?
Is RabbitMQ still considered a good solution for ordered message queuing?
Well, let's take a closer look at the scenario you are describing above. I think it's important to paste the documentation immediately prior to the snippet in your question to provide context:
Section 4.7 of the AMQP 0-9-1 core specification explains the
conditions under which ordering is guaranteed: messages published in
one channel, passing through one exchange and one queue and one
outgoing channel will be received in the same order that they were
sent. RabbitMQ offers stronger guarantees since release 2.7.0.
Messages can be returned to the queue using AMQP methods that feature
a requeue parameter (basic.recover, basic.reject and basic.nack), or
due to a channel closing while holding unacknowledged messages. Any of
these scenarios caused messages to be requeued at the back of the
queue for RabbitMQ releases earlier than 2.7.0. From RabbitMQ release
2.7.0, messages are always held in the queue in publication order, even in the presence of requeueing or channel closure. (emphasis added)
So, it is clear that RabbitMQ, from 2.7.0 onward, is making a rather drastic improvement over the original AMQP specification with regard to message ordering.
With multiple (parallel) consumers, order of processing cannot be guaranteed.
The third paragraph (pasted in the question) goes on to give a disclaimer, which I will paraphrase: "if you have multiple processors in the queue, there is no longer a guarantee that messages will be processed in order." All they are saying here is that RabbitMQ cannot defy the laws of mathematics.
Consider a line of customers at a bank. This particular bank prides itself on helping customers in the order they came into the bank. Customers line up in a queue, and are served by the next of 3 available tellers.
This morning, it so happened that all three tellers became available at the same time, and the next 3 customers approached. Suddenly, the first of the three tellers became violently ill, and could not finish serving the first customer in the line. By the time this happened, teller 2 had finished with customer 2 and teller 3 had already begun to serve customer 3.
Now, one of two things can happen. (1) The first customer in line can go back to the head of the line or (2) the first customer can pre-empt the third customer, causing that teller to stop working on the third customer and start working on the first. This type of pre-emption logic is not supported by RabbitMQ, nor any other message broker that I'm aware of. In either case, the first customer actually does not end up getting helped first - the second customer does, being lucky enough to get a good, fast teller off the bat. The only way to guarantee customers are helped in order is to have one teller helping customers one at a time, which will cause major customer service issues for the bank.
It is not possible to ensure that messages get handled in order in every possible case, given that you have multiple consumers. It doesn't matter if you have multiple queues, multiple exclusive consumers, different brokers, etc. - there is no way to guarantee a priori that messages are answered in order with multiple consumers. But RabbitMQ will make a best-effort.
Message ordering is preserved in Kafka, but only within partitions rather than globally. If your data need both global ordering and partitions, this does make things difficult. However, if you just need to make sure that all of the same events for the same user, etc... end up in the same partition so that they are properly ordered, you may do so. The producer is in charge of the partition that they write to, so if you are able to logically partition your data this may be preferable.
I think there are two things in this question which are not similar, consumption order and processing order.
Message Queues can -to a degree- give you a guarantee that messages will get consumed in order, they can't, however, give you any guarantees on the order of their processing.
The main difference here is that there are some aspects of message processing which cannot be determined at consumption time, for example:
As mentioned a consumer can fail while processing, here the message's consumption order was correct, however, the consumer failed to process it correctly, which will make it go back to the queue. At this point the consumption order is intact, but the processing order is not.
If by "processing" we mean that the message is now discarded and finished processing completely, then consider the case when your processing time is not linear, in other words processing one message takes longer than the other. For example, if message 3 takes longer to process than usual, then messages 4 and 5 might get consumed and finish processing before message 3 does.
So even if you managed to get the message back to the front of the queue (which by the way violates the consumption order) you still cannot guarantee they will also be processed in order.
If you want to process the messages in order:
Have only 1 consumer instance at all times, or a main consumer and several stand-by consumers.
Or don't use a messaging queue and do the processing in a synchronous blocking method, which might sound bad but in many cases and business requirements it is completely valid and sometimes even mission critical.
There are proper ways to guarantuee the order of messages within RabbitMQ subscriptions.
If you use multiple consumers, they will process the message using a shared ExecutorService. See also ConnectionFactory.setSharedExecutor(...). You could set a Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor().
If you use one Consumer with a single queue, you can bind this queue using multiple bindingKeys (they may have wildcards). The messages will be placed into the queue in the same order that they were received by the message broker.
For example you have a single publisher that publishes messages where the order is important:
try (Connection connection2 = factory.newConnection();
Channel channel2 = connection.createChannel()) {
// publish messages alternating to two different topics
for (int i = 0; i < messageCount; i++) {
final String routingKey = i % 2 == 0 ? routingEven : routingOdd;
channel2.basicPublish(exchange, routingKey, null, ("Hello" + i).getBytes(UTF_8));
}
}
You now might want to receive messages from both topics in a queue in the same order that they were published:
// declare a queue for the consumer
final String queueName = channel.queueDeclare().getQueue();
// we bind to queue with the two different routingKeys
final String routingEven = "even";
final String routingOdd = "odd";
channel.queueBind(queueName, exchange, routingEven);
channel.queueBind(queueName, exchange, routingOdd);
channel.basicConsume(queueName, true, new DefaultConsumer(channel) { ... });
The Consumer will now receive the messages in the order that they were published, regardless of the fact that you used different topics.
There are some good 5-Minute Tutorials in the RabbitMQ documentation that might be helpful:
https://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/tutorial-five-java.html
I have a Microsoft Message Queue that gets populated with messages. If there is a problem with the processing of the message, I would like to retry the message, I do not want to retry the message immidiatley.
Is there a way to add a delay to the message in the MSMQ to avoid it being available for a certain amount of time??
The other alternative is to have another queue (A retry queue) and read that queue every 15 minutes, But i would rather not do this.
What you are looking for is "Poison Message Handling" ( even if its not the message fault, but an temporary environment problem ).
There are lots of articles on that. Here are some:
Poison Message Handling in MSMQ 3.0
Poison Message Handling in MSMQ 4.0
Surviving poison messages in MSMQ
In short: you have to move them to a retry queue.
So I've seen some code recently that handles this in the exception logic, the code has a built in retry step that attempts after a delay. It fails, waits for a specific amount of time, then tries again.
Essentially it recursively tries a set number of times (lengthening the delay each time). Fairly neat, no reason to have another queue. There is alot of generics and delegates used to execute the methods. Don't know if something like this could be done or not. I would suspect you would still want to handle the case of the message not being able to be delivered with another queue though.