We are developing a kafka based streaming system in which the producer would produce to multiple partitions within its topic and a single consumer would consume from the topic. I know that kafka maintains message order within partitions, but can we maintain a global message order between partitions within a topic?
Short answer:
no, Kafka does not provide any ordering guarantees between partitions.
Long answer:
I don't quite understand your problem. If you are saying you have only one consumer consuming your topic, why would you have more than 1 partition in that topic and reinvent the wheel trying to maintain order between partitions? If you want to leave some space for future growth, e.g. adding another consumer to consume a part of partitions, then you'll have to rethink your "global message order" idea.
Do you really need ALL messages to be processed in order? Or maybe you could partition by client/application/whatever and maintain order per partition? In most cases you don't really need that global message order, but just have to partition your data properly.
Maintaining order between multiple consumers is a really tough problem to solve, and even if solved correctly you'll just neglect all Kafka benefits.
You can't benifit from kafka if you want the global ordering in more than one partition. Kafka only supports message ordering in only one partition. In our company, we need only the same catergory messages are sent to the same partition, which can easily partition using partitionId.
The purpose of partitions in Kafka is to create a partial order of messages in a broader topic, where the messages follow a strict total order in any given partition. So the answer is 'no', it would defeat the purpose of partitions if any notion of cross-partition order were to be introduced.
I would suggest instead focusing on how messages (records, in Kafka parlance) are keyed, which effectively determines how they are mapped to a partition. Which partition specifically doesn't matter, as long as the mapping is deterministic and repeatable — all you should care about is that identically keyed records will always appear on the same partition and, hence, will not be assigned to multiple consumers at the same time (within the same consumer group).
If you are publishing updates to persisted entities, the primary key of the entity is typically a good starting point for a Kafka record key. If there needs to be some order of updates across a connected graph of entities, then taking the ID root of the graph and making it the key will likely satisfy your ordering needs.
Related
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 need to understand something about kafka:
When I have a single kafka broker on a single host - is there any sense to have it have more than one partition for the topics? I means even if my data can be distinguished with some key (say tenant id) - what is the benefit of doing it on a single kafka broker? does this give any parallelism , if so how?
When a key is used, is this means that each key is mapped to a given partition? Does the number of partitions for a topic must be equal to the number of possible values for the key I specified? OR is this just a hash and so the number of partitions doesnt have to be equal?
From what I read, topics are created due to types of messages to be places in kafka. But in my case, i have 2 topics I have created since I have 2 types of consumption: one for reading one by one message. the second in case of a bulk of messages comes into the queue (application reasons) and then it is being entered into the second topic. Is that a good design although the messages type is the same? any other practice for such a scansion?
Yes, it definitely makes sense to have more than one partition for a topic even when you have a single Kafka broker. A scenario when you can benefit from this is pretty simple:
you need to guarantee in-order processing by tenant id
processing logic for each message is rather complex and takes some time. Especially the case when the Kafka message itself is simple, but the logic behind processing this message takes time (simple example - message is an URL, and the processing logic is downloading the file from there and doing some processing)
Given these 2 conditions you may get into a situation where one consumer is not able to keep up processing all the messages if all the data goes to a single partition. Remember, you can process one partition with exactly one consumer (well, you can use 2 consumers if using different consumer groups, but that's not your case), so you'll start getting behind over time. But if you have more than one partition you'll either be able to use one consumer and process data in parallel (this could help to speed things up in some cases) or just add more consumers.
By default, Kafka uses hash-based partitioning. This is configurable by providing a custom Partitioner, for example you can use random partitioning if you don't care what partition your message ends up in.
It's totally up to you what purposes you have topics for
UPD, answers to questions in the comment:
Adding more consumers is usually done for adding more computing power, not for achieving desired parallelism. To add parallelism add partitions. Most consumer implementations process different partitions on different threads, so if you have enough computing power, you might just have a single consumer processing multiple partitions in parallel. Then, if you start bumping into situations where one consumer is not enough, you just add more consumers.
When you create a topic you just specify the number of partitions (and replication factor for this topic, but that's a different thing). The key and partition to send is completely up to producer. In fact, you could configure your producer to use random partitioner and it won't even care about keys, just pick the partition randomly. There's no direct relation between key -> partition, it's just convenient to benefit from having things setup like this.
Can you elaborate on this one? Not sure I understand this, but I guess your question is whether you can send just a value and Kafka will infer a key somehow itself. If so, then the answer is no - Kafka does not apply any transformation to messages and stores them as is, so if you want your message to contain a key, the producer must explicitly send the key.
Say a consumer does a time intensive processing. In order to scale consumer side processing, i would like to spawn multiple consumers and consumer messages from kafka topic in a round robin fashion. Based on the documentation, it seems like if i create multiple consumers and add them in one consumer group, only one consumer will get the messages. If i add consumers to different consumer groups, each consumer will get the same message. So, in order to achieve the above objective, is the only solution to partition the topic ? This seems like an odd design choice, because the consumer scalability is now bleeding into topic and even producer design. Ideally, if a topic does not partitioning, there should be no need to partition it. This puts un-necessary logic on producer and also causes other consumer types to consume from these partitions that may only make sense to one type of consumer. Plus it limits the usecase, where a certain consumer type may want ordering over the messages, so splitting a topic into partitions may not be possible.
Second if i choose "cleanup.policy" to compact, does it mean that kafka log will keep increasing as it will maintain the latest value for each key? If not, how can i get log deletion and compaction?
UPDATE:
It seems like i have two options to achieve scalability on consumer side, which are independent of topic scaling.
Create consumer groups and have them consume odd and even offsets. This logic would have to be built into the consumers to discard un-needed messages. Also doubles the network requirements
Create a hierarchy of topics, where the root topic gets all the messages. Then some job classifies the logs and publish them again to more fine grained topics. In this case, the strong ordering can be achieved at root and more fine grained topics for consumer scaling can be constructed.
In 0.8, kafka maintains the consumer offset, so publishing messages in a round robin across various consumers is not a too far fetched requirement from their design.
Partitions are the unit of parallelism in Kafka by design. Not just for consumtion but kafka distributes the partiotions accross cluster which has different other benifits like sharing load among different servers, replication management for ensuring no Data loss, managing log to scale beyond a size that will fit on a single server etc.
Ordering of messages is a key factor as if you do not need a storng ordering then diving topics with multiple partitions will allow you to evenly distribute the load while producing (this will be handled by the producer itself). And while using consumer group you just need to add more consumer instances in the same group in order to consume them parallely.
Plus it limits the usecase, where a certain consumer type may want ordering over the messages, so splitting a topic into partitions may not be possible.
True,from the doc
However, if you require a total order over messages this can be achieved with a topic that has only one partition, though this will mean only one consumer process.
Maintaining ordering whiile consuming in distributed manner requires the messaging system to maintain per-message state to keep track of message acknowledgement. But this will involve a lot of expensive random I/O in the system. So clearly there is a trade-off.
Ideally, if a topic does not partitioning, there should be no need to partition it. This puts un-necessary logic on producer and also causes other consumer types to consume from these partitions that may only make sense to one type of consumer
Distributing messages across partitions is typically handled by the producer it self without any intervention from the programmers end (assuming you don't want to categories messages using key). And for the consumers as you just mentioned here the better choice would be to use Simple/Low level consumers which will allow you to consume only a subset of the partitions in a topic.
This seems like an odd design choice, because the consumer scalability is now bleeding into topic and even producer design
I believe for a system like Kafka which focuses on high throughput ( handle hundreds of megabytes of reads and writes per second from thousands of clients ), ensuring scalability and strong durability and fault-tolerance guarantees might not be a good fit for someone having totally a different business requirements.
Topic partitioning is primarily a way to scale out consumers and brokers so if you need many consumers to keep up then you need to partition the topic and add multiple consumer instances in the same consumer group. The producer API will manage partitions transparently. If you need to have certain consumers subscribing only to some partitions, then you need to use the simple consumer API instead of the high level API and in this case you don't have the consumer group concept and have to coordinate consumption yourself.
Message ordering is guaranteed within partitions but not between partitions so if this is a requirement it needs to be dealt with on consumer side.
Setting cleanup.policy=compact means that the Kafka brokers will keep the latest version of a message key indefinitely and use cases like that should be more for recording of data updates for things you intend to keep around rather than the log stream buffering use case.
You need to factor out the reading of Kafka messages from the subsequent processing of those messages. You can use partitions and consumer groups to make reading messages as fast as possible, but if you process the messages as part of your consumer logic then you'll just slow down your consumers. By streaming the messages from consumers to other classes that will perform your processing you can adjust the parallelism of the consumers and of the processors independently. You'll see this approach in technologies like Spark and Storm.
This approach does add one complication and that is that the consumer has to commit the message offset before the message has been processed. You may have to track the messages in flight to insure execute-exactly-once.
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.