For every processor there is a way to configure the processor and there is a context menu to view data provenance.
Is there a good explanation of what is data provenance?
Data provenance is all about understanding the origin and attribution of data. In a typical system you get 'logs'. When you consider data flowing through a series of processes and queues you end up with a lot of lots of course. If you want to follow the path a given piece of data took, or how long it took to take that path, or what happened to an object that got split up into different objects and so on all of that is really time consuming and tough. The provenance that NiFi supports is like logging on steroids and is all about keeping and tracking these relationships between data and the events that shaped and impacted what happened to it. NiFi is keeping track of where each piece of data comes from, what it learned about the data, maintains the trail across splits, joins, transformations, where it sends it, and ultimately when it drops the data. Think of it like a chain of custody for data.
This is really valuable for a few reasons. First, understanding and debugging. Having this provenance capture means from a given event you can go forwards or backwards in the flow to see where data came from and went. Given that NiFi also has an immutable versioned content store under the covers you can also use this to click directly to the content at each stage of the flow. You can also replay the content and context of a given event against the latest flow. This in turn means much faster iteration to the configuration and results you want. This provenance model is also valuable for compliance reasons. You can prove whether you sent data to the correct systems or not. If you learn that you didn't then have data with which you can address the issue or create a powerful audit trail for follow-up.
The provenance model in Apache NiFi is really powerful and it is being extended to the Apache MiNiFi which is a subproject of Apache NiFi as well. More systems producing more provenance will mean you have a far stronger ability to track data from end-to-end. Of course this becomes even more powerful when it can be combined with other lineage systems or centralized lineage stores. Apache Atlas may be a great system to integrate with for this to bring a centralized view. NiFi is able to not only do what I described above but to also send these events to such a central store. So, exciting times ahead for this.
Hope that helps.
Related
This is a very broad question, I’m new to Flink and looking into the possibility of using it as a replacement for a current analytics engine.
The scenario is, data collected from various equipment, the data is received As a JSON encoded string with the format of {“location.attribute”:value, “TimeStamp”:value}
For example a unitary traceability code is received for a location, after which various process parameters are received in a real-time stream. The analysis is to be ran over the process parameters however the output needs to include a relation to a traceability code. For example {“location.alarm”:value, “location.traceability”:value, “TimeStamp”:value}
What method does Flink use for caching values, in this case the current traceability code whilst running analysis over other parameters received at a later time?
I’m mainly just looking for the area to research as so far I’ve been unable to find any examples of this kind of scenario. Perhaps it’s not the kind of process that Flink can handle
A natural way to do this sort of thing with Flink would be to key the stream by the location, and then use keyed state in a ProcessFunction (or RichFlatMapFunction) to store the partial results until ready to emit the output.
With a keyed stream, you are guaranteed that every event with the same key will be processed by the same instance. You can then use keyed state, which is effectively a sharded key/value store, to store per-key information.
The Apache Flink training includes some explanatory material on keyed streams and working with keyed state, as well as an exercise or two that explore how to use these mechanisms to do roughly what you need.
Alternatively, you could do this with the Table or SQL API, and implement this as a join of the stream with itself.
I'm new in ES, and only trying to sort everything in my head. I have heard that ES is actually solving the consistency issue between write and read database (with some delay for sure). But I still do not fully understand how?
If command is coming to domain and aggregate root firing event to update event store, same event is sending to update read side?? But what if message lost, we will have outdated read side.
Is projections the only solution??So instead of updating from event, read side walking through event store and reproducing aggregate (from beginning or from some snapshot). But in such case it's probably breaking some rules as read side should be simple and it should not know about domain. And also usually read side is a separate application so she can't know about aggregate.
For sure we also can use rabbitMQ or some other message broker to not lost messages,and actually I think we need. But I also read that to make it consistent "you can use rabbit or ES", but again how ES can make it consistent by own??
Benjamin is completely right about the purpose of Event Sourcing.
My answer aims to add some more details.
First:
Read models and projections aren't suppose to represent the aggregate state.
Projections are the way for event-sourced systems to build the read model for CQRS. CQRS in essence postulates that write and read models usually serve different purposes and therefore it makes perfect sense to use another model for the read side.
Therefore, you often find multiple projections building different, narrowly purposed models, targeting specific needs for queries.
Second:
By "solving consistency issues" you probably mean that in event-sourced systems each state transition is represented as an event (or multiple events). Therefore, writes are always transactional. The database you choose as your event store should support (could using some library or additional tool) real-time subscription that would allow you to receive new events in your projection, in order. For new projections, it will start reading from the start and eventually come real-time. Subscriptions usually need to keep the current processing position in the global stream of events so when the projection restarts, it starts receiving events from the point which is last known to it.
By doing this, you will guarantee that every state transition in the write model will be reflected in the read model. This is probably what you mean in your original question.
Third:
Now, all those things above imply that you cannot use a message bus (only) to deliver events to projections. Brokers give no ordering guarantees and can deliver one message more than once. Also, message brokers don't keep history so you cannot build new projections at will.
However, it doesn't mean that you can't use brokers at all. Some projections don't require ordering and are idempotent. But the feed for events to publish via a broker is the same subscription, so you get guaranteed delivery and can read past events if necessary.
Fourth:
CQRS doesn't imply separate databases. Sometimes, using CQRS just means that you use some persistence layer for your domain objects, so you read and write aggregates. But for queries, you just query at will, whatever you want. A database view is a technical example of CQRS.
Almost there:
Projections need to have little to no logic, it is true. The main point here is to ensure idempotency, if possible, so projections usually should not use operations to calculate new values based on old values and information from events.
But projections will know about your domain. Everything in your system should know about your domain.
And last:
You can definitely use different databases for write and read models without getting to Event Sourcing. You just need to choose a database that supports a change feed. SQL Server, Postgres, CosmosDb and other databases have such functionality.
P.S. I'd suggest spending some time studying those concepts. I can point to the book repository, it has CQRS and Event Sourcing examples: https://github.com/PacktPublishing/Hands-On-Domain-Driven-Design-with-.NET-Core
I have heard that ES is actually solving the consistency issue between
write and read database
To the best of my knowledge, Event sourcing has NOTHING to do with consistency between read/write to your db. Consistency between read/write has actually more to do with the type of db you are using such as relational which are mostly ACID versus the non-relational db which are often eventual consistency.
ES is not meant for that, instead ES : "Capture all changes to an application state as a sequence of events" Martin Fowler.
ES works like time machine, which allows you to change the state of your application to a specific date time in the past.
When we talk about sourcing events, we have a simple dual write architecture where we can write to database and then write the events to a queue like Kafka. Other downstream systems can read those events and act on/use them accordingly.
But the problem occurs when trying to make both DB and Events in sync as the ordering of these events are required to make sense out of it.
To solve this problem people encourage to use database commit logs as a source of events, and there are tools build around it like Airbnb's Spinal Tap, Redhat's Debezium, Oracle's Golden gate, etc... It solves the problem of consistency, ordering guaranty and all these.
But the problem with using the Database commit log as event source is we are tightly coupling with DB schema. DB schema for a micro-service is exposed, and any breaking changes in DB schema like datatype change or column name change can actually break the downstream systems.
So is using the DB CDC as an event source a good idea?
A talk on this problem and using Debezium for event sourcing
Extending Constantin's answer:
TLDR;
Transaction log tailing/mining should be hidden from others.
It is not strictly an event-stream, as you should not access it directly from other services. It is generally used when transitioning a legacy system gradually to a microservices based. The flow could look like this:
Service A commits a transaction to the DB
A framework or service polls the commit log and maps new commits to Kafka as events
Service B is subscribed to a Kafka stream and consumes events from there, not from the DB
Longer story:
Service B doesn't see that your event is originated from the DB nor it accesses the DB directly. The commit data should be projected into an event. If you change the DB, you should only modify your projection rule to map commits in the new schema to the "old" event format, so consumers must not be changed. (I am not familiar with Debezium, or if it can do this projection).
Your events should be idempotent as publishing an event and committing a transaction
atomically is a problem in a distributed scenario, and tools will guarantee at-least-once-delivery with exactly-once-processing semantics at best, and the exactly-once part is rarer. This is due to an event origin (the transaction log) is not the same as the stream that will be accessed by other services, i.e. it is distributed. And this is still the producer part, the same problem exists with Kafka->consumer channel, but for a different reason. Also, Kafka will not behave like an event store, so what you achieved is a message queue.
I recommend using a dedicated event-store instead if possible, like Greg Young's: https://eventstore.org/. This solves the problem by integrating an event-store and message-broker into a single solution. By storing an event (in JSON) to a stream, you also "publish" it, as consumers are subscribed to this stream. If you want to further decouple the services, you can write projections that map events from one stream to another stream. Your event consuming should be idempotent with this too, but you get an event store that is partitioned by aggregates and is pretty fast to read.
If you want to store the data in the SQL DB too, then listen to these events and insert/update the tables based on them, just do not use your SQL DB as your event store cuz it will be hard to implement it right (failure-proof).
For the ordering part: reading events from one stream will be ordered. Projections that aggregates multiple event streams can only guarantee ordering between events originating from the same stream. It is usually more than enough. (btw you could reorder the messages based on some field on the consumer side if necessary.)
If you are using Event sourcing:
Then the coupling should not exist. The Event store is generic, it doesn't care about the internal state of your Aggregates. You are in the worst case coupled with the internal structure of the Event store itself but this is not specific to a particular Microservice.
If you are not using Event sourcing:
In this case there is a coupling between the internal structure of the Aggregates and the CDC component (that captures the data change and publish the event to an Message queue or similar). In order to limit the effects of this coupling to the Microservice itself, the CDC component should be part of it. In this way when the internal structure of the Aggregates in the Microservice changes then the CDC component is also changed and the outside world doesn't notice. Both changes are deployed at the same time.
So is using the DB CDC as an event source a good idea?
"Is it a good idea?" is a question that is going to depend on your context, the costs and benefits of the different trade offs that you need to make.
That said, it's not an idea that is consistent with the heritage of event sourcing as I learned it.
Event sourcing - the idea that our book of record is a ledger of state changes - has been around a long long time. After all, when we talk about "ledger", we are in fact alluding to those documents written centuries ago that kept track of commerce.
But a lot of the discussion of event sourcing in software is heavily influenced by domain driven design; DDD advocates (among other things) aligning your code concepts with the concepts in the domain you are modeling.
So here's the problem: unless you are in some extreme edge case, your database is probably some general purpose application that you are customizing/configuring to meet your needs. Change data capture is going to be limited by the fact that it is implemented using general purpose mechanisms. So the events that are produced are going to look like general purpose patch documents (here's the diff between before and after).
But if we trying to align our events with our domain concepts (ie, what does this change to our persisted state mean), then patch documents are a step in the wrong direction.
For example, our domain might have multiple "events" that make changes to the same, or very similar, sets of fields in our model. Trying to rediscover the motivation for a change by reverse engineering the diff is kind of a dumb problem to have; especially when we have already fought with the same sort of problem learning user interface design.
In some domains, a general purpose change is good enough. In some contexts, a general purpose change is good enough for now. Horses for courses.
But it's not really the sort of implementation that the "event sourcing" community is talking about.
Besides Constantin Galbenu mentioned CDC component side, you can also do it in event storage side like Kafka stream API.
What is Kafka stream API? Input is read from one or more topics in order to generate output to one or more topics, effectively transforming the input streams to output streams.
After transfer detailed data to abstract data, your DB schema is only bind with the transformation now and can release the tightly relation between DB and subscribers.
If your data schema need to change a lot, maybe you should add a new topic for it.
If the submitted data to NiFi are not coming in a steady flow (but on bursty) how can NiFi handle them? Does it use a message broker to buffer them? I haven't seen anything like this in its documentation.
NiFi connections (the links between processors) have the capability of buffering FlowFiles (the unit of data that NiFi handles, basically content + metadata about that content), and NiFi also has the feature of backpressure, the ability of a processor to "tell" the upstream flow that it cannot handle any more data at a particular time. The relevant discussion from User Guide is here.
Basically you can set up connection(s) to be as "wide" as you expect the burst to be, or if that is not prudent, you can set it to a more appropriate value, and NiFi will do sort of a "leaky bucket with notification" approach, where it will handle what data it can, and the framework will handle scheduling of upstream processors based on whether they would be able to do their job.
If you are getting data from a source system that does not buffer data, then you can suffer data loss when backpressure is applied; however that is because the source system must push data when NiFi can not prudently accept it, and thus the alterations should be made on the source system vs the NiFi flow.
I'll illustrate my question with Twitter. For example, Twitter has microservice-based architecture which means that different processes are in different servers and have different databases.
A new tweet appears, server A stored in its own database some data, generated new events and fired them. Server B and C didn't get these events at this point and didn't store anything in their databases nor processed anything.
The user that created the tweet wants to edit that tweet. To achieve that, all three services A, B, C should have processed all events and stored to db all required data, but service B and C aren't consistent yet. That means that we are not able to provide edit functionality at the moment.
As I can see, a possible workaround could be in switching to immediate consistency, but that will take away all microservice-based architecture benefits and probably could cause problems with tight coupling.
Another workaround is to restrict user's actions for some time till data aren't consistent across all necessary services. Probably a solution, depends on customer and his business requirements.
And another workaround is to add additional logic or probably service D that will store edits as user's actions and apply them to data only when they will be consistent. Drawback is very increased complexity of the system.
And there are two-phase commits, but that's 1) not really reliable 2) slow.
I think slowness is a huge drawback in case of such loads as Twitter has. But probably it could be solved, whereas lack of reliability cannot, again, without increased complexity of a solution.
So, the questions are:
Are there any nice solutions to the illustrated situation or only things that I mentioned as workarounds? Maybe some programming platforms or databases?
Do I misunderstood something and some of workarounds aren't correct?
Is there any other approach except Eventual Consistency that will guarantee that all data will be stored and all necessary actions will be executed by other services?
Why Eventual Consistency has been picked for this use case? As I can see, right now it is the only way to guarantee that some data will be stored or some action will be performed if we are talking about event-driven approach when some of services will start their work when some event is fired, and following my example, that event would be “tweet is created”. So, in case if services B and C go down, I need to be able to perform action successfully when they will be up again.
Things I would like to achieve are: reliability, ability to bear high loads, adequate complexity of solution. Any links on any related subjects will be very much appreciated.
If there are natural limitations of this approach and what I want cannot be achieved using this paradigm, it is okay too. I just need to know that this problem really isn't solved yet.
It is all about tradeoffs. With eventual consistency in your example it may mean that the user cannot edit for maybe a few seconds since most of the eventual consistent technologies would not take too long to replicate the data across nodes. So in this use case it is absolutely acceptable since users are pretty slow in their actions.
For example :
MongoDB is consistent by default: reads and writes are issued to the
primary member of a replica set. Applications can optionally read from
secondary replicas, where data is eventually consistent by default.
from official MongoDB FAQ
Another alternative that is getting more popular is to use a streaming platform such as Apache Kafka where it is up to your architecture design how fast the stream consumer will process the data (for eventual consistency). Since the stream platform is very fast it is mostly only up to the speed of your stream processor to make the data available at the right place. So we are talking about milliseconds and not even seconds in most cases.
The key thing in these sorts of architectures is to have each service be autonomous when it comes to writes: it can take the write even if none of the other application-level services are up.
So in the example of a twitter like service, you would model it as
Service A manages the content of a post
So when a user makes a post, a write happens in Service A's DB and from that instant the post can be edited because editing is just a request to A.
If there's some other service that consumes the "post content" change events from A and after a "new post" event exposes some functionality, that functionality isn't going to be exposed until that service sees the event (yay tautologies). But that's just physics: the sun could have gone supernova five minutes ago and we can't take any action (not that we could have) until we "see the light".