I'm considering using apache beam to write a streaming pipeline to apply a stream of mutations to replicate events from a source database into a destination database in the order of event time. The source could be either kafka or pubsub.
An example would be something like this except that the order in which the mutations are applied to the sink must be in order in which they arrived.
I did go over some of the previous questions asked on preserving order:
Processing Total Ordering of Events By Key using Apache Beam
Sort elements within a fixed window - Cloud Dataflow - This seems to be same use case i'm interested in.
I understand that if I go down the apache beam road i would have to
choose a windowing strategy with accommodation for late data (either a fixed windowing strategy with a allowed lateness or with global window, have triggers to emit panes and buffer for late data)
apply transformations
GroupByKey over a single key(so that everthing goes to the same worker), sort and write to sink
In addition to the above, I would have to make sure the windows(if i follow a fixed window strategy) are executed in order. Step 3 is bound to be the bottleneck.
If [2] above in the list of steps is a lot of computation then apache beam would make sense to take advantage of parallelism which beam offers. But if [2] is just a simple one to one mapping, does apache beam make sense for this replication usecase. Please let me know if i'm missing something.
Note: We do have a batch pipeline on dataflow using apache beam to load a datadump on gcs to database where the entire data is on disk and the order in which its written to sink does not matter.
Preserving order it's possible, but not sure if it's straightforward or efficient.
It also depends on how much data (elements/sec) you're expecting as well as what the sink type is. Potentially you could have the pipeline write out ordered entries to GCS, and the sink just reads the files in, in order, as a secondary process.
Your other option, of using parallel writes and make sure the database is usable only till the output watermark time of the last beam stage, it's maybe doable, but not really the core use case of Dataflow/Apache Beam.
Maybe there could be ways to process the stream out of order, but write to an intermediate sink that can easily be read from in order. i.e. writing out the mutation batches with a step or file number that can easily be used to order the files when applied to the final sink.
The window + write to final sink architecture is going to be difficult to get right, probably too complex for low volume of elements, and too inefficient for large volume. This is a good example of what this could look like.
But again, keep in mind that all this approaches are definitely not the core use case for Dataflow/Apache Beam.
Dynamic Work Rebalancing will distribute work to workers optimally where fusion will collapse execution graph so that graph will be smaller meaning less workers are involved. How does dynamic work rebalancing help fusion such that even with the presence of fusions distribution of work is happening optimally? For example if fused worker is struggling because of let's say fanout that is happening in map step. Logically speaking more workers should be involved but graph is fused. Can dynamic work rebalancing still take an effect in this situation?
Dynamic Rebalancing is supposed to work even graph is fused. Dynamic rebalancing means master asks workers to split their work and assigns those work to idle workers.
Fusion is an optimization on pipeline graph logically while Dynamic rebalancing is an optimization during runtime. You can think of that fusion is trying to reduce steps of computation while dynamic rebalancing tries to accelerate execution of each step, no matter if that step is sufficient or can be merged with other steps.
When you have a FanOut step which is fused, the recommendation will be to break fusion after the FanOut. You can prevent such a fusion by adding an operation to your pipeline that forces the Cloud Dataflow service to materialize your intermediate PCollection. For example you can insert a GroupByKey and ungroup after your first ParDo. The Cloud Dataflow service never fuses ParDo operations across an aggregation.
You can find more details of this topic at the following link:
https://cloud.google.com/dataflow/docs/guides/deploying-a-pipeline#dynamic-work-rebalancing
Edit:
I believe the information in the limitation section from the dataflow docs around fusion and work rebalancing may help here. "...If a large number of steps in your job are fused, there are fewer intermediate PCollections in your job and Dynamic Work Rebalancing will be limited to the number of elements in the source materialized PCollection. " Hope that helps
Background:
We have a really simple pipeline which reads some data from BigQuery (usually ~300MB) filters/transforms it and puts it back to BigQuery. in 99% of cases this pipeline finishes in 7-10minutes and is then restarted again to process a new batch.
Problem:
Recently, the job has started to take >3h once in a while, maybe 2 times in a month out of 2000 runs. When I look at the logs, I can't see any errors and in fact it's only the first step (read from BigQuery) that is taking so long.
Does anyone have a suggestion on how to approach debugging of such cases? Especially since it's really the read from BQ and not any of our transformation code. We are using Apache Beam SDK for Python 0.6.0 (maybe that's the reason!?)
Is it maybe possible to define a timeout for the job?
This is an issue on either Dataflow side or BigQuery side depending on how one looks at it. When splitting the data for parallel processing, Dataflow relies on an estimate of the data size. The long runtime happens when BigQuery sporadically gives a severe under-estimate of the query result size, and Dataflow, as a consequence, severely over-splits the data and the runtime becomes bottlenecked by the overhead of reading lots and lots of tiny file chunks exported by BigQuery.
On one hand, this is the first time I've seen BigQuery produce such dramatically incorrect query result size estimates. However, as size estimates are inherently best-effort and can in general be arbitrarily off, Dataflow should control for that and prevent such oversplitting. We'll investigate and fix this.
The only workaround that comes to mind meanwhile is to use the Java SDK: it uses quite different code for reading from BigQuery that, as far as I recall, does not rely on query size estimates.
We've often seen people write Dataflow pipelines that don't scale well. This is frustrating since Dataflow is meant to scale transparently, but there still are some antipatterns in Dataflow pipelines that make it difficult to scale. What are some common antipatterns and tips for avoiding them?
Scaling Your Dataflow Pipeline
Hi, Reuven Lax here. I’m a member of the Dataflow engineering team, where I lead the design and implementation of our streaming runner. Prior to Dataflow I led the team that built MillWheel for a number of years. MillWheel was described in this VLDB 2013 paper, and is the basis for the streaming technology underlying Dataflow.
Dataflow usually removes the need for you to think too much about how to make a pipeline scale. A lot of work has gone into sophisticated algorithms that can automatically parallelize and tune your pipeline across many machines. However as with any such system, there are some anti-patterns that can bottleneck your pipeline at scale. In this post we will go over three of these anti-patterns, and discuss how to address them. It’s assumed that you are already familiar with the Dataflow programming model. If not, I recommend beginning with our Getting Started guide and Tyler Akidau’s Streaming 101 and Streaming 102 blog posts. You may also read the Dataflow model paper published in VLDB 2015.
Today we’re going to talk about scaling your pipeline - or more specifically, why your pipeline might not scale. When we say scalability, we mean the ability of the pipeline to operate efficiently as input size increases and key distribution changes. The scenario: you’ve written a cool new Dataflow pipeline, which the high-level operations we provide made easy to write. You’ve tested this pipeline locally on your machine using DirectPipelineRunner and everything looks fine. You’ve even tried deploying it on a small number of Compute VMs, and things still look rosy. Then you try and scale up to a larger data volume, and the picture becomes decidedly worse. For a batch pipeline, it takes far longer than expected for the pipeline to complete. For a streaming pipeline, the lag reported in the Dataflow UI keeps increasing as the pipeline falls further and further behind. We’re going to explain some reasons this might happen, and how to address them.
Expensive Per-Record Operations
One common problem we see is pipelines that perform needlessly expensive or slow operations for each record processed. Technically this isn’t a hard scaling bottleneck - given enough resources, Dataflow can still distribute this pipeline on enough machines to make it perform well. However when running over many millions or billions of records, the cost of these per-record operations adds up to an unexpectedly-large number. Usually these problems aren’t noticeable at all at lower scale.
Here’s an example of one such operation, taken from a real Dataflow pipeline.
import javax.json.Json;
...
PCollection<OutType> output = input.apply(ParDo.of(new DoFn<InType, OutType>() {
public void processElement(ProcessContext c) {
JsonReader reader = Json.createReader();
// Perform some processing on entry.
...
}
}));
At first glance it’s not obvious that anything is wrong with this code, yet when run at scale this pipeline ran extremely slowly.
Since the actual business logic of our code shouldn't have caused a slowdown, we suspected that something was adding per-record overhead to our pipeline. To get more information on this, we had to ssh to the VMs to get actual thread profiles from workers. After a bit of digging, we found threads were often stuck in the following stack trace:
java.util.zip.ZipFile.getEntry(ZipFile.java:308)
java.util.jar.JarFile.getEntry(JarFile.java:240)
java.util.jar.JarFile.getJarEntry(JarFile.java:223)
sun.misc.URLClassPath$JarLoader.getResource(URLClassPath.java:1005)
sun.misc.URLClassPath$JarLoader.findResource(URLClassPath.java:983)
sun.misc.URLClassPath$1.next(URLClassPath.java:240)
sun.misc.URLClassPath$1.hasMoreElements(URLClassPath.java:250)
java.net.URLClassLoader$3$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:601)
java.net.URLClassLoader$3$1.run(URLClassLoader.java:599)
java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
java.net.URLClassLoader$3.next(URLClassLoader.java:598)
java.net.URLClassLoader$3.hasMoreElements(URLClassLoader.java:623)
sun.misc.CompoundEnumeration.next(CompoundEnumeration.java:45)
sun.misc.CompoundEnumeration.hasMoreElements(CompoundEnumeration.java:54)
java.util.ServiceLoader$LazyIterator.hasNextService(ServiceLoader.java:354)
java.util.ServiceLoader$LazyIterator.hasNext(ServiceLoader.java:393)
java.util.ServiceLoader$1.hasNext(ServiceLoader.java:474)
javax.json.spi.JsonProvider.provider(JsonProvider.java:89)
javax.json.Json.createReader(Json.java:208)
<.....>.processElement(<filename>.java:174)
Each call to Json.createReader was searching the classpath trying to find a registered JsonProvider. As you can see from the stack trace, this involves loading and unzipping JAR files. Doing this per record on a high-scale pipeline is not likely to perform very well!
The solution here was for the user to create a static JsonReaderFactory and use that to instantiate the individual reader objects. You might be tempted to create a JsonReaderFactory per bundle of records instead, inside Dataflow’s startBundle method. However, while this will work well for a batch pipeline, in streaming mode the bundles may be very small - sometimes just a few records. As a result, we don’t recommend doing expensive work per bundle either. Even if you believe your pipeline will only be used in batch mode, you may in the future want to run it as a streaming pipeline. So future-proof your pipelines, by making sure they’ll work well in either mode!
Hot Keys
A fundamental primitive in Dataflow is GroupByKey. GroupByKey allows one to group a PCollection of key-value pairs so that all values for a specific key are grouped together to be processed as a unit. Most of Dataflow’s built-in aggregating transforms - Count, Top, Combine, etc. - use GroupByKey under the cover. You might have a hot key problem if a single worker is extremely busy (e.g. high CPU use determined by looking at the set of GCE workers for the job) while other workers are idle, yet the pipeline falls farther and farther behind.
The DoFn that processes the result of a GroupByKey is given an input type of KV<KeyType, Iterable<ValueType>>. This means that the entire set of all values for that key (within the current window if using windowing) is modeled as a single Iterable element. In particular, this means that all values for that key must be processed on the same machine, in fact on the same thread. Performance problems can occur in the presence of hot keys - when one or more keys receive data faster than can be processed on a single cpu. For example, consider the following code snippet
p.apply(Read.from(new UserWebEventSource())
.apply(new ExtractBrowserString())
.apply(Window.<Event>into(FixedWindow.of(1, Duration.standardSeconds(1))))
.apply(GroupByKey.<String, Event>create())
.apply(ParDo.of(new ProcessEventsByBrowser()));
This code keys all user events by the user’s web browser, and then processes all events for each browser as a unit. However there is a small number of very popular browsers (such as Chrome, IE, Firefox, Safari), and those keys will be very hot - possibly too hot to process on one CPU. In addition to performance, this is also a scalability bottleneck. Adding more workers to the pipeline will not help if there are four hot keys, since those keys can processed on at most four workers. You’ve structured your pipeline so that Dataflow can’t scale it up without violating the API contract.
One way to alleviate this is to structure the ProcessEventsByBrowser DoFn as a combiner. A combiner is a special type of user function that allows piecewise processing of the iterable. For example, if the goal was to count the number of events per browser per second, Count.perKey() can be used instead of a ParDo. Dataflow is able to lift part of the combining operation above the GroupByKey, which allows for more parallelism (for those of you coming from the Database world, this is similar to pushing a predicate down); some of the work can be done in a previous stage which hopefully is better distributed.
Unfortunately, while using a combiner often helps, it may not be enough - especially if the hot keys are very hot; this is especially true for streaming pipelines. You might also see this when using the global variants of combine (Combine.globally(), Count.globally(), Top.largest(), among others.). Under the covers these operations are performing a per-key combine on a single static key, and may not perform well if the volume to this key is too high. To address this we allow you to provide extra parallelism hints using the Combine.PerKey.withHotKeyFanout or Combine.Globally.withFanout. These operations will create an extra step in your pipeline to pre-aggregate the data on many machines before performing the final aggregation on the target machines. There's no magic number for these operations, but the general strategy would be to split any hot key into enough sub-shards so that any single shard is well under the per-worker throughput that your pipeline can sustain.
Large Windows
Dataflow provides a sophisticated windowing facility for bucketing data according to time. This is most useful in streaming pipelines when processing unbounded data, however, it is fully supported for batch, bounded pipelines as well. When a windowing strategy has been attached to a PCollection, any subsequent grouping operation (most notably GroupByKey) performs a separate grouping per window. Unlike other systems that provide only globally-synchronized windows, Dataflow windows the data for each key separately. This is what us to provide flexible per-key windows such as sessions. For more information, I recommend that you read the windowing guide in the Dataflow documentation.
As a consequence of the fact that windows are per key, Dataflow buffers elements on the receiver side while waiting for each window to close. If using very-long windows - e.g. a 24-hour fixed window - this means that a lot of data has to be buffered, which can be a performance bottleneck for the pipeline. This can manifest as slowness (like for hot keys), or even as out of memory errors on the workers (visible in the logs). We again recommend using combiners to reduce the data size. The difference between writing this:
pcollection.apply(Window.into(FixedWindows.of(1, TimeUnit.DAYS)))
.apply(GroupByKey.<KeyType, ValueType>create())
.apply(ParDo.of(new DoFn<KV<KeyType, Iterable<ValueType>>, Long>() {
public void processElement(ProcessContext c) {
c.output(c.element().size());
}
}));
… and this ...
pcollection.apply(Window.into(FixedWindows.of(1, TimeUnit.DAYS)))
.apply(Count.perKey());
… isn’t just brevity. In the latter snippet Dataflow knows that a count combiner is being applied, and so only needs to store the count so far for each key, no matter how long the window is. In contrast, Dataflow understands less about the first snippet of code and is forced to buffer an entire day’s worth of data on receivers, even though the two snippets are logically equivalent!
If it’s impossible to express your operation as a combiner, then we recommend looking at the triggers API. This will allow you to optimistically process portions of the window before the window closes, and so reduce the size of buffered data.
Note that many of these limitations do not apply to the batch runner. However as mentioned above, you're always better off future proofing your pipeline and making sure it runs well in both modes.
We've talked about hot keys, large windows, and expensive per-record operations. Other guidance can be found in our documentation. Although this post has focused on challenges you may encounter with scaling your pipeline, there are many benefits to Dataflow that are largely transparent -- things like dynamic work rebalancing to minimize straggler effects, throughput-based autoscaling, and job resource management adapt to many different pipeline and data shapes without user intervention. We're always trying to make our system more adaptive, and plan to automatically incorporate some of the above strategies into the core execution engine over time. Thanks for reading, and happy Dataflowing!
We currently are using google taskqueues to batch up requests to store analytics data into Keen and Stathat (more performant with batch puts). In order to consume from the taskqueues, we have a set of process brokers and workers to consume from the taskqueues. Seeing as dataflow is something where we just write the logic for pushing to our analytics solutions and we can specify a batch size to pull when processing in our dataflow program, I was curious if the overhead (seems more taylored to much larger applications) of dataflow is a good fit.
Your use case seems like a good one for Dataflow. Rather than publishing to a task queue you could publish to pubsub as a way to stream your data to your Dataflow job. Your Dataflow job could use Dataflow windows and triggers to batch your data based on size and/or time. You could then write each batch to your datastore.
Dataflow should work well on small datasets. The overhead would likely be in the cost of unused CPU cycles of Dataflow workers. Dataflow allows you to control the number of workers so you can allocate a number of workers suitable for your data size.
Utilization will depend on how evenly your load is spread out in time. If your peak and average loads are quite different then you can make a tradeoff between latency and utilization. If you want to maintain low latency then you can pick the number of workers so that you keep up during peak times. On the other hand if you want to maximize utilization, you can provision the number of workers based on average load. During peak times you would start to accumulate a backlog of messages in pubsub. The system would get rid of that backlog during non-peak times when there was spare capacity.
Right now Dataflow doesn't support writing custom sinks for unbounded data. One way to work around this is to do the writes from a DoFn rather than a sink. This should work just fine provided you can do your writes in an idempotent way so that writing a record multiple times won't cause problems.
Windowing and triggers are a way of dividing your data into finite batches to which aggregations (e.g. grouping, summing, etc...) can be applied. This blog post explains it better than I could (look at the section "windowing").