I have a Kafka producer which is producing messages at high rate (message key is let us say a username and value is his current score in a game). The Kafka consumer is relatively slow in processing the consumed messages. Here my requirement is to show most up-to-date score and avoid showing stale data, with the tradeoff that some scores may never be shown.
Essentially for each of the username, I may have hundreds of messages in the same partition, but I always want to read the latest one.
A crude solution which has been implemented was like this: The producer sends just a key as each message and actual value is written to a database, which is shared with the consumer. The consumer reads each key from the queue and value from the database. Here the goal to read always the latest value is achieved by producer overwriting the value in the database -- so consumer which is in fact reading a given key will actually consume the latest value. But this solution has some drawbacks due to high number of reads and updates (slow, race conditions etc.)
I am looking for a more natural way of solving this in kafka or kafka streams where I can somehow define get latest value for a key from the stream of data for each key. Thanks!
Below code helped
KStreamBuilder builder = new KStreamBuilder();
KTable<String, String> dataTable = builder.table("input-topic");
dataTable.toStream().foreach((key, message) -> client.post(message));
KafkaStreams streams = new KafkaStreams(builder, config);
streams.start();
What makes this possible in practice is in-memory compaction of incoming stream (details explained here). We could control the pressure using the parameters cache.max.bytes.buffering and commit.interval.ms
Related
I have an existing BEAM pipeline that is handling the data ingested (from Google Pubsub topic) by 2 routes. The 'hot' path does some basic transformation and stores them in Datastore, while the 'cold' path performs fixed hourly windowing for deeper analysis before storage.
So far the pipeline has been running fine until I started to do some local buffering on the data before publishing to Pubsub (so data arrives at Pubsub may be a few hours 'late'). The error that gets thrown is as below:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Cannot output with timestamp 2018-06-19T14:00:56.862Z. Output timestamps must be no earlier than the timestamp of the current input (2018-06-19T14:01:01.862Z) minus the allowed skew (0 milliseconds). See the DoFn#getAllowedTimestampSkew() Javadoc for details on changing the allowed skew.
at org.apache.beam.runners.core.SimpleDoFnRunner$DoFnProcessContext.checkTimestamp(SimpleDoFnRunner.java:463)
at org.apache.beam.runners.core.SimpleDoFnRunner$DoFnProcessContext.outputWithTimestamp(SimpleDoFnRunner.java:429)
at org.apache.beam.sdk.transforms.WithTimestamps$AddTimestampsDoFn.processElement(WithTimestamps.java:138)
It seems to be referencing the section of my code (withTimestamps method) that performs the hourly windowing as below:
Window<KV<String, Data>> window = Window.<KV<String, Data>>into
(FixedWindows.of(Duration.standardHours(1)))
.triggering(Repeatedly.forever(pastEndOfWindow()))
.withAllowedLateness(Duration.standardSeconds(10))
.discardingFiredPanes();
PCollection<KV<String, List<Data>>> keyToDataList = eData.apply("Add Event Timestamp", WithTimestamps.of(new EventTimestampFunction()))
.apply("Windowing", window)
.apply("Group by Key", GroupByKey.create())
.apply("Sort by date", ParDo.of(new SortDataFn()));
I'm not sure if I understand exactly what I've done wrong here. Is it because the data is arriving late that is throwing the error? As I understand, if the data arrives late past the allowed lateness, it should be discarded and not throw an error like the one I'm seeing.
Wondering if setting an unlimited timestampSkew will resolve this? The data that's late can be exempt from analysis, I just need to ensure that errors don't get thrown that will choke the pipeline. There's also nowhere else where I'm adding/ changing the timestamps for the data so I'm not sure why the errors are thrown.
It looks like your DoFn is using “outputWithTimestamp” and you are trying to set a timestamp which is older than the input element’s timestamp. Typically timestamps of output elements are derived from inputs, this is important to ensure the correctness of the watermark computation.
You may be able to workaround this by increasing both the timestamp skew and the windwing allowed lateness, however, some data may be lost, it is for you to determine if such loss is acceptable in your scenario.
Another alternative is not to use output with timestamp and instead use the PubSub message timestamp to process each message. Then, output each element as a KV, where the RealTimestamp is computed in the same way you are currently processing the timestamp (just don’t use it in “WithTimestamps”), GroupByKey and write the KV to Datastore.
Other questions you can ask yourself are:
Why are the input elements associated to a most recent timestamp than the output elements?
Do you really need to Buffer that much data before publishing to PubSub?
I want to de-dupe a stream of data based on an ID in a windowed fashion. The stream we receive has and we want to remove data with matching within N-hour time windows. A straight-forward approach is to use an external key-store (BigTable or something similar) where we look-up for keys and write if required but our qps is extremely large making maintaining such a service pretty hard. The alternative approach I came up with was to groupBy within a timewindow so that all data for a user within a time-window falls within the same group and then, in each group, we use a separate key-store service where we look up for duplicates by the key. So, I have a few questions about this approach
[1] If I run a groupBy transform, is there any guarantee that each group will be processed in the same slave? If guaranteed, we can group by the userid and then within each group compare the sessionid for each user
[2] If it is feasible, my next question is to whether we can run such other services in each of the slave machines that run the job - in the example above, I would like to have a local Redis running which can then be used by each group to look up or write an ID too.
The idea seems off what Dataflow is supposed to do but I believe such use cases should be common - so if there is a better model to approach this problem, I am looking forward to that too. We essentially want to avoid external lookups as much as possible given the amount of data we have.
1) In the Dataflow model, there is no guarantee that the same machine will see all the groups across windows for the key. Imagine that a VM dies or new VMs are added and work is split across them for scaling.
2) Your welcome to run other services on the Dataflow VMs since they are general purpose but note that you will have to contend with resource requirements of the other applications on the host potentially causing out of memory issues.
Note that you may want to take a look at RemoveDuplicates and use that if it fits your usecase.
It also seems like you might want to be using session windows to dedupe elements. You would call:
PCollection<T> pc = ...;
PCollection<T> windowed_pc = pc.apply(
Window<T>into(Sessions.withGapDuration(Duration.standardMinutes(N hours))));
Each new element will keep extending the length of the window so it won't close until the gap closes. If you also apply an AfterCount speculative trigger of 1 with an AfterWatermark trigger on a downstream GroupByKey. The trigger would fire as soon as it could which would be once it has seen at least one element and then once more when the session closes. After the GroupByKey you would have a DoFn that filters out an element which isn't an early firing based upon the pane information ([3], [4]).
DoFn(T -> KV<session key, T>)
|
\|/
Window.into(Session window)
|
\|/
Group by key
|
\|/
DoFn(Filter based upon pane information)
It is sort of unclear from your description, can you provide more details?
Sorry for not being clear. I gave the setup you mentioned a try, except for the early and late firings part, and it is working on smaller samples. I have a couple of follow up questions, related to scaling this up. Also, I was hoping I could give you more information on what the exact scenario is.
So, we have incoming data stream, each item of which can be uniquely identified by their fields. We also know that duplicates occur pretty far apart and for now, we care about those within a 6 hour window. And regarding the volume of data, we have atleast 100K events every second, which span across a million different users - so within this 6 hour window, we could get a few billion events into the pipeline.
Given this background, my questions are
[1] For the sessioning to happen by key, I should run it on something like
PCollection<KV<key, T>> windowed_pc = pc.apply(
Window<KV<key,T>>into(Sessions.withGapDuration(Duration.standardMinutes(6 hours))));
where key is a combination of the 3 ids I had mentioned earlier. Based on the definition of Sessions, only if I run it on this KV would I be able to manage sessions per-key. This would mean that Dataflow would have too many open sessions at any given time waiting for them to close and I was worried if it would scale or I would run into any bottle-necks.
[2] Once I perform Sessioning as above, I have already removed the duplicates based on the firings since I will only care about the first firing in each session which already destroys duplicates. I no longer need the RemoveDuplicates transform which I found was a combination of (WithKeys, Combine.PerKey, Values) transforms in order, essentially performing the same operation. Is this the right assumption to make?
[3] If the solution in [1] going to be a problem, the alternative is to reduce the key for sessioning to be just user-id, session-id ignoring the sequence-id and then, running a RemoveDuplicates on top of each resulting window by sequence-id. This might reduce the number of open sessions but still would leave a lot of open sessions (#users * #sessions per user) which can easily run into millions. FWIW, I dont think we can session only by user-id since then the session might never close as different sessions for same user could keep coming in and also determining the session gap in this scenario becomes infeasible.
Hope my problem is a little more clear this time. Please let me know any of my approaches make the best use of Dataflow or if I am missing something.
Thanks
I tried out this solution at a larger scale and as long as I provide sufficient workers and disks, the pipeline scales well although I am seeing a different problem now.
After this sessionization, I run a Combine.perKey on the key and then perform a ParDo which looks into c.pane().getTiming() and only rejects anything other than an EARLY firing. I tried counting both EARLY and ONTIME firings in this ParDo and it looks like the ontime-panes are actually deduped more precisely than the early ones. I mean, the #early-firings still has some duplicates whereas the #ontime-firings is less than that and has more duplicates removed. Is there any reason this could happen? Also, is my approach towards deduping using a Combine+ParDo the right one or could I do something better?
events.apply(
WithKeys.<String, EventInfo>of(new SerializableFunction<EventInfo, String>() {
#Override
public java.lang.String apply(EventInfo input) {
return input.getUniqueKey();
}
})
)
.apply(
Window.named("sessioner").<KV<String, EventInfo>>into(
Sessions.withGapDuration(mSessionGap)
)
.triggering(
AfterWatermark.pastEndOfWindow()
.withEarlyFirings(AfterPane.elementCountAtLeast(1))
)
.withAllowedLateness(Duration.ZERO)
.accumulatingFiredPanes()
);
I am trying to backprocess data in Kafka topics using a Kafka Streams application that involves a join. One of the streams to be joined has much larger volume of data per unit of time in the corresponding topic. I would like to control the consumption from the individual topics so that I get roughly the same event timestamps from each topic in a single consumer.poll(). However, there doesn't appear to be any way to control the behavior of the KafkaConsumer backing the source stream. Is there any way around this? Any insight would be appreciated.
Currently Kafka cannot control the rate limit on both Producers and Consumers.
Refer:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-13+-+Quotas
But if you are using Apache Spark as the stream processing platform, you can limit the input rate for the Kafka receivers.
in the consumer side you can use consume([num_messages=1][, timeout=-1])
function instead of poll.
consume([num_messages=1][, timeout=-1]):
Consumes a list of messages (possibly empty on timeout). Callbacks may be executed as a side effect of calling this method.
The application must check the returned Message object’s Message.error() method to distinguish between proper messages (error() returns None) and errors for each Message in the list (see error().code() for specifics). If the enable.partition.eof configuration property is set to True, partition EOF events will also be exposed as Messages with error().code() set to _PARTITION_EOF.
num_messages (int) – The maximum number of messages to return (default: 1).
timeout (float) – The maximum time to block waiting for message, event or callback (default: infinite (-1)). (Seconds)
I have a dataset with potentially corrupted/malicious data. The data is timestamped. I'm rating the data with a heuristic function. After a period of time I know that all new data items coming with some IDs needs to be discarded and they represent a significant portion of data (up to 40%).
Right now I have two batch pipelines:
First one just runs the rating over the data.
The second one first filters out the corrupted data and runs the analysis.
I would like to switch from batch mode (say, running every day) into an online processing mode (hope to get a delay < 10 minutes).
The second pipeline uses a global window which makes processing easy. When the corrupted data key is detected, all other records are simply discarded (also using the discarded keys from previous days as a pre-filter is easy). Additionally it makes it easier to make decisions about the output data as during the processing all historic data for a given key is available.
The main question is: can I create a loop in a Dataflow DAG? Let's say I would like to accumulate quality-rates given to each session window I process and if the rate sum is over X, some a filter function in earlier stage of pipeline should filter out malicious keys.
I know about side input, I don't know if it can change during runtime.
I'm aware that DAG by definition cannot have cycle, but how achieve same result without it?
Idea that comes to my mind is to use side output to mark ID as malicious and make fake unbounded output/input. The output would dump the data to some storage and the input would load it every hour and stream so it can be joined.
Side inputs in the Beam programming model are windowed.
So you were on the right path: it seems reasonable to have a pipeline structured as two parts: 1) computing a detection model for the malicious data, and 2) taking the model as a side input and the data as a main input, and filtering the data according to the model. This second part of the pipeline will get the model for the matching window, which seems to be exactly what you want.
In fact, this is one of the main examples in the Millwheel paper (page 2), upon which Dataflow's streaming runner is based.
I'm building an OTP application which follows a pattern similar to one described on trapexit, where I implement a non-blocking gen_server using gen_server:call/3 to initiate a transaction with a backend and store a mapping of transaction id to the From pid. When the gen_server receives a message from the backend, it extracts the transaction id and uses this mapping to look up the correct pid, which it forwards the message to.
In the trapexit example, this mapping is implemented using ets, however I found that having the gen_server's state contain a dict with these mappings to be a very natural solution.
For my particular use case the mapping will contain, at most, 200 entries.
Which implementation is recommended?
Thanks in advance!
200 is enough to have some impact on performance compared to ets (probably one order of magnitude or less). The real question you must ask yourself is "Do I need this extra performance or will this be sufficient?".
If performance isn't an issue use the dict.
The functional approach is to keep your private data in state. One practical consideration against having very large state data (which yours does not appear to be) however is that it will get dumped in a crash log.