I have a question related to a tricky situation in an event-driven system that I want to ask for advise. Here is the situation:
In our system, I use redis as a memcached database, and kafkaa as message queues. To increase the performance of redis, I use lua scripting to process data, and at the same time, push events into a blocking list of redis. Then there will be a process to pick redis events in that blocking list and move them to kafka. So in this process, there are 3 steps:
1) Read events from redis list
2) Produce in batch into kafka
3) Delete corresponding events in redis
Unfortunately, if the process dies between 2 and 3, meaning that after producing all events into kafka, it doesn't delete corresponding events in redis, then after that process is restarted, it will produce duplicated events into kafka, which is unacceptable. So does any one has any solution for this problem. Thanks in advance, I really appreciate it.
Kafka is prone to reprocess events, even if written exactly once. Reprocessing will almost certainly be caused by rebalancing clients. Rebalancing might be triggered by:
Modification of partitions on a topic.
Redeployment of servers and subsequent temporary unavailabilty of clients.
Slow message consumption and subsequent recreation of client by the broker.
In other words, if you need to be sure that messages are processed exactly once, you need to insure that at the client. You could do so, by setting a partition key that ensures related messages are consumed in a sequential fashion by the same client. This client could then maintain a databased record of what he has already processed.
Related
To keep it short, here is a simplified situation:
I need to implement a queue for background processing of imported data files. I want to dedicate a number of consumers for this specific task (let's say 10) so that multiple users can be processed at in parallel. At the same time, to avoid problems with concurrent data writes, I need to make sure that no one user is processed in multiple consumers at the same time, basically all files of a single user should be processed sequentially.
Current solution (but it does not feel right):
Have 1 queue where all import tasks are published (file_queue_main)
Have 10 queues for file processing (file_processing_n)
Have 1 result queue (file_results_queue)
Have a manager process (in this case in node.js) which consumes messages from file_queue_main one by one and decides to which file_processing queue to distribute that message. Basically keeps track of in which file_processing queues the current user is being processed.
Here is a little animation of my current solution and expected behaviour:
Is RabbitMQ even the tool for the job? For some reason, it feels like some sort of an anti-pattern. Appreciate any help!
The part about this that doesn't "feel right" to me is the manager process. It has to know the current state of each consumer, and it also has to stop and wait if all processors are working on other users. Ideally, you'd prefer to keep each process ignorant of the others. You're also getting very little benefit out of your processing queues, which are only used when a processor is already working on a message from the same user.
Ultimately, the best solution here is going to depend on exactly what your expected usage is and how likely it is that the next message is from a user that is already being processed. If you're expecting most of your messages coming in at any one time to be from 10 users or fewer, what you have might be fine. If you're expecting to be processing messages from many different users with only the occasional duplicate, your processing queues are going to be empty much of the time and you've created a lot of unnecessary complexity.
Other things you could do here:
Have all consumers pull from the same queue and use some sort of distributed locking to prevent collisions. If a consumer gets a message from a user that's already being worked on, requeue it and move on.
Set up your queue routing so that messages from the same user will always go to the same consumer. The downside is that if you don't spread the traffic out evenly, you could have some consumers backed up while others sit idle.
Also, if you're getting a lot of messages in from the same user at once that must be processed sequentially, I would question if they should be separate messages at all. Why not send a single message with a list of things to be processed? Much of the benefit of event queues comes from being able to treat each event as a discrete item that can be processed individually.
If the user has a unique ID, or the file being worked on has a unique ID then hash the ID to get the processing queue to enter. That way you will always have the same user / file task queued on the same processing queue.
I am not sure how this will affect queue length for the processing queues.
Redis team introduce new Streams data type for Redis 5.0. Since Streams looks like Kafka topics from first view it seems difficult to find real world examples for using it.
In streams intro we have comparison with Kafka streams:
Runtime consumer groups handling. For example, if one of three consumers fails permanently, Redis will continue to serve first and second because now we would have just two logical partitions (consumers).
Redis streams much faster. They stored and operated from memory so this one is as is case.
We have some project with Kafka, RabbitMq and NATS. Now we are deep look into Redis stream to trying using it as "pre kafka cache" and in some case as Kafka/NATS alternative. The most critical point right now is replication:
Store all data in memory with AOF replication.
By default the asynchronous replication will not guarantee that XADD commands or consumer groups state changes are replicated: after a failover something can be missing depending on the ability of followers to receive the data from the master. This one looks like point to kill any interest to try streams in high load.
Redis failover process as operated by Sentinel or Redis Cluster performs only a best effort check to failover to the follower which is the most updated, and under certain specific failures may promote a follower that lacks some data.
And the cap strategy. The real "capped resource" with Redis Streams is memory, so it's not really so important how many items you want to store or which capped strategy you are using. So each time you consumer fails you would get peak memory consumption or message lost with cap.
We use Kafka as RTB bidder frontend which handle ~1,100,000 messages per second with ~120 bytes payload. With Redis we have ~170 mb/sec memory consumption on write and with 512 gb RAM server we have write "reserve" for ~50 minutes of data. So if processing system would be offline for this time we would crash.
Could you please tell more about Redis Streams usage in real world and may be some cases you try to use it themself? Or may be Redis Streams could be used with not big amount of data?
long time no see. This feels like a discussion that belongs in the redis-db mailing list, but the use case sounds fascinating.
Note that Redis Streams are not intended to be a Kafka replacement - they provide different properties and capabilities despite the similarities. You are of course correct with regards to the asynchronous nature of replication. As for scaling the amount of RAM available, you should consider using a cluster and partition your streams across period-based key names.
I would like to create a cluster for high availability and put a load balancer front of this cluster. In our configuration, we would like to create exchanges and queues manually, so one exchanges and queues are created, no client should make a call to redeclare them. I am using direct exchange with a routing key so its possible to route the messages into different queues on different nodes. However, I have some issues with clustering and queues.
As far as I read in the RabbitMQ documentation a queue is specific to the node it was created on. Moreover, we can only one queue with the same name in a cluster which should be alive in the time of publish/consume operations. If the node dies then the queue on that node will be gone and messages may not be recovered (depends on the configuration of course). So, even if I route the same message to different queues in different nodes, still I have to figure out how to use them in order to continue consuming messages.
I wonder if it is possible to handle this failover scenario without using mirrored queues. Say I would like switch to a new node in case of a failure and continue to consume from the same queue. Because publisher is just using routing key and these messages can go into more than one queue, same situation is not possible for the consumers.
In short, what can I to cope with the failures in an environment explained in the first paragraph. Queue mirroring is the best approach with a performance penalty in the cluster or a more practical solution exists?
Data replication (mirrored queues in RabbitMQ) is a standard approach to achieve high availability. I suggest to use those. If you don't replicate your data, you will lose it.
If you are worried about performance - RabbitMQ does not scale well.
The only way I know to improve performance is just to make your nodes bigger or create second cluster. Adding nodes to cluster does not really improve things. Also if you are planning to use TLS it will decrease throughput significantly as well. If you have high throughput requirement +HA I'd consider Apache Kafka.
If your use case allows not to care about HA, then just re-declare queues/exchanges whenever your consumers/publishers connect to the broker, which is absolutely fine. When you declare queue that's already exists nothing wrong will happen, queue won't be purged etc, same with exchange.
Also, check out RabbitMQ sharding plugin, maybe that will do for your usecase.
I've found different zookeeper definitions across multiple resources. Maybe some of them are taken out of context, but look at them pls:
A canonical example of Zookeeper usage is distributed-memory computation...
ZooKeeper is an open source Apache™ project that provides a centralized infrastructure and services that enable synchronization across a cluster.
Apache ZooKeeper is an open source file application program interface (API) that allows distributed processes in large systems to synchronize with each other so that all clients making requests receive consistent data.
I've worked with Redis and Hazelcast, that would be easier for me to understand Zookeeper by comparing it with them.
Could you please compare Zookeeper with in-memory-data-grids and Redis?
If distributed-memory computation, how does zookeeper differ from in-memory-data-grids?
If synchronization across cluster, than how does it differs from all other in-memory storages? The same in-memory-data-grids also provide cluster-wide locks. Redis also has some kind of transactions.
If it's only about in-memory consistent data, than there are other alternatives. Imdg allow you to achieve the same, don't they?
https://zookeeper.apache.org/doc/current/zookeeperOver.html
By default, Zookeeper replicates all your data to every node and lets clients watch the data for changes. Changes are sent very quickly (within a bounded amount of time) to clients. You can also create "ephemeral nodes", which are deleted within a specified time if a client disconnects. ZooKeeper is highly optimized for reads, while writes are very slow (since they generally are sent to every client as soon as the write takes place). Finally, the maximum size of a "file" (znode) in Zookeeper is 1MB, but typically they'll be single strings.
Taken together, this means that zookeeper is not meant to store for much data, and definitely not a cache. Instead, it's for managing heartbeats/knowing what servers are online, storing/updating configuration, and possibly message passing (though if you have large #s of messages or high throughput demands, something like RabbitMQ will be much better for this task).
Basically, ZooKeeper (and Curator, which is built on it) helps in handling the mechanics of clustering -- heartbeats, distributing updates/configuration, distributed locks, etc.
It's not really comparable to Redis, but for the specific questions...
It doesn't support any computation and for most data sets, won't be able to store the data with any performance.
It's replicated to all nodes in the cluster (there's nothing like Redis clustering where the data can be distributed). All messages are processed atomically in full and are sequenced, so there's no real transactions. It can be USED to implement cluster-wide locks for your services (it's very good at that in fact), and tehre are a lot of locking primitives on the znodes themselves to control which nodes access them.
Sure, but ZooKeeper fills a niche. It's a tool for making a distributed applications play nice with multiple instances, not for storing/sharing large amounts of data. Compared to using an IMDG for this purpose, Zookeeper will be faster, manages heartbeats and synchronization in a predictable way (with a lot of APIs for making this part easy), and has a "push" paradigm instead of "pull" so nodes are notified very quickly of changes.
The quotation from the linked question...
A canonical example of Zookeeper usage is distributed-memory computation
... is, IMO, a bit misleading. You would use it to orchestrate the computation, not provide the data. For example, let's say you had to process rows 1-100 of a table. You might put 10 ZK nodes up, with names like "1-10", "11-20", "21-30", etc. Client applications would be notified of this change automatically by ZK, and the first one would grab "1-10" and set an ephemeral node clients/192.168.77.66/processing/rows_1_10
The next application would see this and go for the next group to process. The actual data to compute would be stored elsewhere (ie Redis, SQL database, etc). If the node failed partway through the computation, another node could see this (after 30-60 seconds) and pick up the job again.
I'd say the canonical example of ZooKeeper is leader election, though. Let's say you have 3 nodes -- one is master and the other 2 are slaves. If the master goes down, a slave node must become the new leader. This type of thing is perfect for ZK.
Consistency Guarantees
ZooKeeper is a high performance, scalable service. Both reads and write operations are designed to be fast, though reads are faster than writes. The reason for this is that in the case of reads, ZooKeeper can serve older data, which in turn is due to ZooKeeper's consistency guarantees:
Sequential Consistency
Updates from a client will be applied in the order that they were sent.
Atomicity
Updates either succeed or fail -- there are no partial results.
Single System Image
A client will see the same view of the service regardless of the server that it connects to.
Reliability
Once an update has been applied, it will persist from that time forward until a client overwrites the update. This guarantee has two corollaries:
If a client gets a successful return code, the update will have been applied. On some failures (communication errors, timeouts, etc) the client will not know if the update has applied or not. We take steps to minimize the failures, but the only guarantee is only present with successful return codes. (This is called the monotonicity condition in Paxos.)
Any updates that are seen by the client, through a read request or successful update, will never be rolled back when recovering from server failures.
Timeliness
The clients view of the system is guaranteed to be up-to-date within a certain time bound. (On the order of tens of seconds.) Either system changes will be seen by a client within this bound, or the client will detect a service outage.
The Scenario:
We have multiple nodes distributed geographically on which we want to have queues collecting messages for that location. And then we want to send this collected data from every queue in every node to their corresponding queues in a central location. In the central node, we will pull out data collected in the queues (from other nodes), process it and store it persistently.
Constraints:
Data is very important to us. Therefore, we have to make sure that we are not loosing data in any case.
Therefore, we need persistent queues on every node so that even if the node goes down for some random reason, when we bring it up we have the collected data safe with us and we can send it to the central node where it can be processed.
Similarly, if the central node goes down, the data must remain at all the other nodes so that when the central node comes up we can send all the data to the central node for processing.
Also, the data on the central node must not get duplicated or stored again. That is data collected on one of the nodes should be stored on the central nodes only once.
The data that we are collecting is very important to us and the order of data delivery to the central node is not an issue.
Our Solution
We have considered a couple of solutions out of which I am going to list down the one that we thought would be the best. A possible solution (in our opinion) is to use Redis to maintain queues everywhere because Redis provides persistent storage. Then perhaps have a daemon running on all the geographically separated nodes which reads the data from the queue and sends it to the central node. The central node on receiving the data sends an ACK to the node it received the data from (because data is very important to us) and then on receiving the ACK, the node deletes the data from the queue. Of course, there will be timeout period in which the ACK must be received.
The Problem
The above stated solution (according to us) will work fine but the issue is that we don't want to implement the whole synchronization protocol by ourselves for the simple reason that we might be wrong here. We were unable to find this particular way of synchronization in Redis. So we are open to other AMQP based queues like RabbitMQ, ZeroMQ, etc. Again we were not able to figure out if we can do this with these solutions.
Do these Message Queues or any other data store provide features that can be the solution to our problem? If yes, then how?
If not, then is our solution good enough?
Can anyone suggest a better solution?
Can there be a better way to do this?
What would be the best way to make it fail safe?
The data that we are collecting is very important to us and the order of data delivery to the central node is not an issue.
You could do this with RabbitMQ by setting up the central node (or cluster of nodes) to be a consumer of messages from the other nodes, and using the message acknowledgement feature. This feature means that the central node(s) can ack delivery, so that other nodes only delete messages after the ack. See for example: http://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/tutorial-two-python.html
If you have further questions please email the mailing list rabbitmq-discuss.