I'm using the KafkaSpout to read / stream message of compressed Byte[]. The bolts are simple: uncompress the message -> write to Cassandra. I'm wondering which Stream Grouping to use.
The samples appear to mainly use the Shuffle Grouping. In testing I've been using the All Grouping (figuring that I want all of the messages to go through the one bolt) but I see notes about "Use this grouping with care".
Suggestions on how to proceeed?
Shuffle grouping is sufficient for your use case, which distributes workload across downstream bolts.
All grouping is rarely needed, and can results in duplicated processing in all downstream bolts.
Reference:
https://storm.apache.org/documentation/Concepts.html#stream-groupings
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.
In nifi, if I am listening to Kafka from single topic and based on the routing logic it'll call the respective process group.
However, in RouteOnContent processor, if we give regular expression for checking the occurance of string will it affect performance or how to achieve the a good performance while routing based on condition.
It would be more efficient to do some split at KSQL / Stream Processing level into different topics and have Nifi reading from different topics?
Running a regex on the content of each message is an inefficient approach, consider if you can modify your approach to one of the following:
Have your Producers write the necessary metadata into a Kafka Header which can use a much more efficient RouteOnAttribute processor in NiFi. This is still message-at-a-time which has throughput limitations
If your messages conform to a schema, use the more efficient KafkaRecord processors in NiFi with a QueryRecord approach which will significantly boost throughput
If you cannot modify the source data and the regex logic is involved, it may be more efficient to use a small Kafka Streams app to split the topic before processing the data further downstream
My topology looks like this :
Data_Enrichment_Persistence_Topology
So basically the problem I am trying to solve here is that every time any issue comes in the Stop or Load service bolts, and a tuple fails , it replays and the spout re emits it. This makes the Cassandra bolt re process the tuple and rewrite data.
I can not make the tuples in the load and stop bolts unanchored as i need them to be replayed in case of any failure. However I only want to get the upper workflow replayed.
I am using a KafkaSpout to emit data ( it is emitting it on the " default" stream). Not sure how to duplicate the streams at the Kafka Spout's emit level.
If I can duplicate the streams the replay on any of of the two will only re emit the message on a particular stream right at the spout level leaving the other stream untouched right?
TIA!
You need to use two output streams in your Spout -- one for each downstream pass. Furthermore, you emit each tuple to both streams (using different message-id).
Thus, if one fails, you can reply this tuple to just this stream.
I'm having the following situation:
There is a number of bolts that calculate different values
This values are sent to visualization bolt
Visualization bolt opens a web socket and sends values to be visualized somehow
The thing is, visualization bolt is always the same, but it sends a message with a different header for each type of bolt that can be its input. For example:
BoltSum calculates sum
BoltDif calculates difference
BoltMul calculates multiple
All this bolts use VisualizationBolt for visualization
There are 3 instances of VisualizationBolt in this case
My question is, should I create 3 independent instances, where each instance will have one thread, e.g.
builder.setBolt("forSum", new VisualizationBolt(),1).globalGrouping("bolt-sum");
builder.setBolt("forDif", new VisualizationBolt(),1).globalGrouping("bolt-dif");
builder.setBolt("forMul", new VisualizationBolt(),1).globalGrouping("bolt-mul");
Or should I do the following
builder.setBolt("forAll", new VisualizationBolt(),3)
.fieldsGrouping("forSum", new Fields("type"))
.fieldsGrouping("forDif", new Fields("type"))
.fieldsGrouping("forMul", new Fields("type"));
And emit type from each of the previous bolts, so they can be grouped on based on it?
What are the advantages?
Also, should I expect that each and every time bolt-sum will go to first visualization bolt, bolt-dif will go to second visualization bolt and bolt-mul will go to third visualization bolt? They won't be mixed?
I think that that should be the case, but it currently isn't in my implementation, so I'm not sure if it's a bug or I'm missing something?
The first approach using three instances is the correct approach. Using fieldsGrouping does not ensure, that "sum" values go to "Sum-Visualization-Bolt" and neither that sum/diff/mul values are distinct (ie, in different bolt instances).
The semantic of fieldGrouping is more relaxed: it only guarantees, that all tuples of the same type will be processed by a single bolt instance, ie, that it will never be the case, that two different bolt instances get the same type.
I guess you can use Partial Key grouping (partialKeyGrouping). On the Storm documentation about stream groups says:
Partial Key grouping: The stream is partitioned by the fields
specified in the grouping, like the Fields grouping, but are load
balanced between two downstream bolts, which provides better
utilization of resources when the incoming data is skewed. This paper
provides a good explanation of how it works and the advantages it
provides.
I implemented a simple topology using this grouping and the chart on Graphite server show a better load balance compared to fieldsGrouping. The full source code is here.
topologyBuilder.setBolt(MqttSensors.BOLT_SENSOR_TYPE.getValue(), new SensorAggregateValuesWindowBolt().withTumblingWindow(Duration.seconds(5)), 2)
// .fieldsGrouping(MqttSensors.SPOUT_STATION_01.getValue(), new Fields(MqttSensors.FIELD_SENSOR_TYPE.getValue()))
// .fieldsGrouping(MqttSensors.SPOUT_STATION_02.getValue(), new Fields(MqttSensors.FIELD_SENSOR_TYPE.getValue()))
.partialKeyGrouping(MqttSensors.SPOUT_STATION_01.getValue(), new Fields(MqttSensors.FIELD_SENSOR_TYPE.getValue()))
.partialKeyGrouping(MqttSensors.SPOUT_STATION_02.getValue(), new Fields(MqttSensors.FIELD_SENSOR_TYPE.getValue()))
.setNumTasks(4) // This will create 4 Bolt instances
.addConfiguration(TagSite.SITE.getValue(), TagSite.EDGE.getValue())
;
I'm trying to setup Storm to aggregate a stream, but with various (DRPC available) metrics on the same stream.
E.g. the stream is consisted of messages that have a sender, a recipient, the channel through which the message arrived and a gateway through which it was delivered. I'm having trouble deciding how to organize one or more topologies that could give me e.g. total count of messages by gateway and/or by channel. And besides the total, counts per minute would be nice too.
The basic idea is to have a spout that will accept messaging events, and from there aggregate the data as needed. Currently I'm playing around with Trident and DRPC and I've came up with two possible topologies that solve the problem at this stage. Can't decide which approach is better, if any?!
The entire source is available at this gist.
It has three classes:
RandomMessageSpout
used to emit the messaging data
simulates the real data source
SeparateTopology
creates a separate DRPC stream for each metric needed
also a separate query state is created for each metric
they all use the same spout instance
CombinedTopology
creates a single DRPC stream with all the metrics needed
creates a separate query state for each metric
each query state extracts the desired metric and groups results for it
Now, for the problems and questions:
SeparateTopology
is it necessary to use the same spout instance or can I just say new RandomMessageSpout() each time?
I like the idea that I don't need to persist grouped data by all the metrics, but just the groupings we need to extract later
is the spout emitted data actually processed by all the state/query combinations, e.g. not the first one that comes?
would this also later enable dynamic addition of new state/query combinations at runtime?
CombinedTopology
I don't really like the idea that I need to persist data grouped by all the metrics since I don't need all the combinations
it came as a surprise that the all the metrics always return the same data
e.g. channel and gateway inquiries return status metrics data
I found that this was always the data grouped by the first field in state definition
this topic explains the reasoning behind this behaviour
but I'm wondering if this is a good way of doing thins in the first place (and will find a way around this issue if need be)
SnapshotGet vs TupleCollectionGet in stateQuery
with SnapshotGet things tended to work, but not always, only TupleCollectionGet solved the issue
any pointers as to what is correct way of doing that?
I guess this is a longish question / topic, but any help is really appreciated!
Also, if I missed the architecture entirely, suggestions on how to accomplish this would be most welcome.
Thanks in advance :-)
You can't actually split a stream in SeparateTopology by invoking newStream() using the same spout instance, since that would create new instances of the same RandomMessageSpout spout, which would result in duplicate values being emitted to your topology by multiple, separate spout instances. (Spout parallelization is only possible in Storm with partitioned spouts, where each spout instance processes a partition of the whole dataset -- a Kafka partition, for example).
The correct approach here is to modify the CombinedTopology to split the stream into multiple streams as needed for each metric you need (see below), and then do a groupBy() by that metric's field and persistentAggregate() on each newly branched stream.
From the Trident FAQ,
"each" returns a Stream object, which you can store in a variable. You can then run multiple eaches on the same Stream to split it, e.g.:
Stream s = topology.each(...).groupBy(...).aggregate(...)
Stream branch1 = s.each(...)
Stream branch2 = s.each(...)
See this thread on Storm's mailing list, and this one for more information.