We have a existing setup where upstream systems send messages to us on a Message Queue and we process these messages.The content is xml and we simply unmarshal.This unmarshalling step is followed by a write to db (to put relevant values onto relevant columns).
The system is set to interface with many more upstream systems and our volumes are going to increase to a peak size of 40mm per day.
Our current way of processing is have listeners on the queues and then have a multiple threads of producers and consumers which do the unmarshalling and subsequent db write.
My question : Can this process fit into the Storm use case scenario?
I mean can MQ be my spout and I have 2 bolts one to unmarshal and this then becomes the spout for the next bolt which does the write to db?
If yes,what is the benefit that I can derive? Is it a goodbye to cumbersome multi threaded producer/worker pattern of code.
If its as simple as the above then where/why would one want to resort to the conventional multi threaded approach to producer/consumer scenario
My point being is there a data volume/frequency at which Storm starts to shine when compared to the conventional approach.
PS : I'm very new to this and trying to get a hang of this and want to ascertain if the line of thinking is right
Regards,
CVM
Definitely this scenario can fit into a storm topology. The spouts can pull from MQ and the bolts can handle the unmarshalling and subsequent processing.
The major benefit over conventional multi threaded pattern is the ability to add more worker nodes as the load increases. This is not so easy with traditional producer consumer patterns.
Specific data volume number is a very broad question since it depends on a large number of factors like hardware etc.
Related
We have a spark-streaming micro batch process which consumes data from kafka topic with 20 partitions. The data in the partitions are independent and can be processed independently. The current problem is the micro batch waits for processing to be complete in all 20 partitions before starting next micro batch. So if one partition completes processing in 10 seconds and other partition takes 2 mins then the first partition will have to wait for 110 seconds before consuming next offset.
I am looking for a streaming solution where we can process the 20 partitions independently without having to wait for other partition to complete a process. The steaming solution should consume data from each partition and progress offsets at its own rate independent of other partitions.
Anyone have suggestion on which streaming architecture would allow to achieve my goal?
Any of Flink (AFAIK), KStreams, and Akka Streams will be able to progress through the partitions independently: none of them does Spark-style batching unless you explicitly opt in.
Flink is similar to Spark in that it has a job server model; KStreams and Akka are both libraries that you just integrate into your project and deploy like any other JVM application (e.g. you can build a container and run on a scheduler like kubernetes). I personally prefer the latter approach: it generally means less infrastructure to worry about and less of an impedance mismatch to integrate with observability tooling used elsewhere.
Flink is an especially good choice when it comes to time-window based processing and joins.
KStreams fundamentally models everything as a transformation from one kafka topic to another: the topic topology is managed by KStreams, but there can be some gotchas there (especially if you're dealing with anything time-seriesy).
Akka is the most general and (in some senses) the least opinionated of the toolkits: you will have to make more decisions with less handholding (I'm saying this as someone who could probably fairly be called an Akka cheerleader); as a pure stream processing library, it may not be the ideal choice (though in terms of resource consumption, being able to more explicitly manage backpressure (basically, what happens when data comes in faster than it can be processed) may make it more efficient than the alternatives). I'd probably tend to only choose it if you were going to also take advantage of cluster sharded (and almost certainly event-sourced) actors: the benefit of doing that is that you can completely decouple your processing parallelism from the number of input Kafka partitions (e.g. you may be able to deploy 40 instances of processing and have each working on half of the data from Kafka).
We are working on parallelising our Kafka consumer to process more number of records to handle the Peak load. One way, we are already doing is through spinning up as many consumers as many partitions within the same consumer group.
Our Consumer deals with making an API call which is synchronous as of now. We felt making this API call asynchronous will make our consumer handle more load. Hence, we are trying to making the API call Asynchronous and in its response we are increasing the offset. However we are seeing an issue with this:
By making the API call Asynchronous, we may get the response for the last record first and none of the previous record's API calls haven't initiated or done by then. If we commit the offset as soon as we receive the response of the last record, the offset would get changed to the last record. In the meantime if the consumer restarts or partition rebalances, we will not receive any record before the last record we committed the offset as. With this, we will miss out the unprocessed records.
As of now we already have 25 partitions. We are looking forward to understand if someone have achieved parallelism without increasing the partitions or increasing the partitions is the only way to achieve parallelism (to avoid offset issues).
First, you need to decouple (if only at first) the reading of the messages from the processing of these messages. Next look at how many concurrent calls you can make to your API as it doesn't make any sense to call it more frequently than the server can handle, asynchronously or not. If the number of concurrent API calls is roughly equal to the number of partitions you have in your topic, then it doesn't make sense to call the API asynchronously.
If the number of partitions is significantly less than the max number of possible concurrent API calls then you have a few choices. You could try to make the max number of concurrent API calls with fewer threads (one per consumer) by calling the API's asynchronously as you suggest, or you can create more threads and make your calls synchronously. Of course, then you get into the problem of how can your consumers hand their work off to a greater number of shared threads, but that's exactly what streaming execution platforms like Flink or Storm do for you. Streaming platforms (like Flink) that offer checkpoint processing can also handle your problem of how to handle offset commits when messages are processed out of order. You could roll your own checkpoint processing and roll your own shared thread management, but you'd have to really want to avoid using a streaming execution platform.
Finally, you might have more consumers than max possible concurrent API calls, but then I'd suggest that you just have fewer consumers and share partitions, not API calling threads.
And, of course, you can always change the number of your topic partitions to make your preferred option above more feasible.
Either way, to answer your specific question you want to look at how Flink does checkpoint processing with Kafka offset commits. To oversimplify (because I don't think you want to roll your own), the kafka consumers have to remember not only the offsets they just committed, but they have to hold on to the previous committed offsets, and that defines a block of messages flowing though your application. Either that block of messages in its entirety is processed all the way through or you need to rollback the processing state of each thread to the point where the last message in the previous block was processed. Again, that's a major oversimplification, but that's kinda how it's done.
You have to look at kafka batch processing. In a nutshell: you can setup huge batch.size with a little number (or even single) of partitions. As far, as whole batch of messages consumed at consumer side (i.e. in ram memory) - you can parallelize this messages in any way you want.
I would really like to share links, but their number rolls over the web hole.
UPDATE
In terms of committing offsets - you can do this for whole batch.
In general, kafka doesn't achieve target performance requirements by abusing partitions number, but rather relying on batch processing.
I already saw a lot of projects, suffering from partitions scaling (you may see issues later, during rebalancing for example). The rule of thumb - look at every available batch setting first.
I have a spring integration application and I am using message driver adapter to consume messages from external systems. To handle the messages concurrently I have setup concurrent (5) and maximum concurrent consumers (20) which is working fine.
But for production scenario I wanted to fine tune it further. I just want to understand that if we have any standard suggestion regarding how much we can increase this maximum concurrent consumer to? I understand that this is purely dependent on the application and how much traffic is coming to it but I hope there should be some standard process to figure out this number. If we blindly increase this number to a random value like 1000 than it might lead to resource starvation, conflicts etc so I am trying to understand the process of how to go about fine tuning this property.
Thanks!
There is no standard process as there is no standard performance requirement. It all depends on your SLA and performant system is the one that meets your SLA (as there is no such thing as beats SLA).
The main caveat when it comes to concurrent consumers is the order of messages. Basically once you introduced more then one consumer you can not and should not assume any guarantees of message ordering.
I want to know the applicability of the Akka Actor model.
I know it is useful in the case a huge number of Actor instances are created and destroyed. e.g. a call server, where every incoming call creates an actor instance and communicates with few other actors and get killed after the call is over.
Is it also useful in the following scenario :
A server has a few processing elements (10~50) implemented over Actors. The lifetime of these processing elements is infinite. some of them do not maintain state and a few maintain state. The processing elements process the message and pass the message to other actors in a fixed manner. The system receives a huge number of messages from outside and gets passed through processing elements and goes out of the system.
My gut feeling is that we cannot get any advantage by using Akka Actor model and even implementing this server in Scala. Because the use case for which Akka is designed, is not applicable here. If the scale-up meant that processing elements be increased dynamically then it would be applicable.
For fixed topologies, I think if i implement it in Java, it is going to be more beneficial in terms of raw performance. The 'immutability' feature of Scala leads to more copies and so reduces performance. So i believe i better stick to Java.
Is my understanding correct? I a nut shell i want to know why i should leave Java and use Scala/Akka for the application scenario above. and my target is to process 1 million messages per second.
If this question is still actual...
Scala vs. Java
Scala gives productivity to developers.
Immutability decreases debugging to almost zero level.
GC perfectly copes with waste immutables.
Akka Actors vs. other means
Akka has dispatcher that distributes all tasks across fixed thread pool. This allows to evenly consume available resources. This approach is much better than the fixed worker threads — the processing resources are provided to the tasks not DataFlow nodes.
DataFlow implementation
There is a SynapseGrid library that is built on top of Akka Actors and allows easy construction of DataFlow systems distributed over fixed immortal Actors. It can even draw the DataFlow diagram (in .dot format) of the whole system.
(The library is more convenient to be used with Scala.)
I'm working on an application that is distributed over two JBoss instances and that produces/consumes JMS messages on several JMS queues.
When we configured the application we had to determine which threading model we would use, in particular the number of producing and consuming threads per queue. We have done this in a rather ad-hoc fashion but after reading the most recent columns by Herb Sutter in Dr Dobbs (in particular this one) I would like to size our threads in a more rigorous manner.
Are there any methods/tools to measure the throughput of JMS queues (in particular JBoss Messaging queues) as a function of the number of producing/consuming threads?
This is not really about a specific tool, but may be helpful.
Consumers:
Not sure what your inner architecture is, but let's assume it's an MDB reading in messages. I assert that your only requirement here for rigorous thread count sizing is to choose a maximum cap. If your MDB uses resources from a finite supplier like a JDBC connection pool, consider the maximum cap as the highest number of concurrent instances from that resource that you can tolerate taking. If the MDB's queue is remote, you probably want to consider remote connections (or technically, JMS sessions) a finite resource. If the MDB has less finite requirements (and the queue is local), your maximum cap becomes the number of threads, memory used and/or flat out CPU consumed by the working threads. The reasoning here is that the JBoss MDB container will simply keep allocating more MDB instances (and therefore threads) until the queue is empty or the maximum cap is reached. The only reason I can think of that you would really agonize over the minimum would be if the container's elapsed time or overhead to create new instances is above your tolerance and those operations are usually pretty small potatoes.
Producers
A general axiom of messaging is that producers nearly always outperform consumers. You would think this is pretty arbitrary, but it is a pattern I see recurring all the time, even in widely different messaging scenarios. Anyways, it's tough to say how the threading should work for the producer without knowing a bit about the application, but are you basically capable of [indefinitely] proportionally increasing the number of producer threads and the number of messages generated, or do you have some sort of cap where additional threads simply do not generate more messages ? I would guess it is the latter since most useful work has some limited data or calculation supplier. As I see it, the two drivers here are ordering and persistence.
First off, if you have strict message ordering where messages must be processed in strict (FPFP) First Produced First Processed then you're in a bit of a bind because you almost have to drop down to single threaded throughput unless you can devise some form of logical message demarcation (eg. a client number where any given client's messages are always sent to the same queue, but you may have multiple queues each serviced by one thread so each client is effectively FPFP).
Ordering aside, persistence is the next consideration in that if you have reliable and extensive message persistence, (or have a very high tolerance for message loss) just let the producer threads go to town. The messages will queue up reliably and eventually the consumers will [hopefully] catch up. However, if your message persistence message count or simple queue depths can potentially give you the willies when they get too high, here's where a tool might come in useful. If your producer thread count can be dynamically modified (which they can in many Java ThreadPool implementations) then you could sample the queue depths and raise or lower the producer thread count in accordance with the queue depth ranges you define, optionally to the point where if the consumers basically stall, so will the producers. I do not know of a specific tool that does this but between two JBoss servers this is fairly simple to whip up. Picking your queue depth-->producer thread count will be trickier.
Having said all that, I am going to actually read the article you linked to.....
I've got the perfect thing for you: IBM provide a free command line tool called perfharness.
It's aimed at benchmarking JMS providers, i.e. measuring the throughput of queues (single or multiple) given different numbers of producing or consuming threads.
Some features:
Send and consume messages at a fixed rate (msg/s) or at maximum rate possible on the queue
Use a specific number of threads
Use either JMS or native MQ
Can use data either generated randomly or taken from a file
Generates statistics telling you exactly how fast your queue is performing
The only down side is that it's not super intuitive, given the number of operations it supports. And IBM haven't open sourced it, which is a shame. However it sounds perfect for your purposes.