Develop Reference

Can I send a message different topics in kafka at runtime depending on the load?

I have 5 defined topics, my specific question is there any way in the code to know if a kafka topic is free or is still full to be able to balance the load between topics
In the producer I have to do the function .send(Topic1, object) but if the topic to which I am sending the information is busy or already has to load, how can I know it to change the function to .send(Topic2, object) by means of a conditional?
I do not know if this can be done or that otherwise you can know this. Currently, I plan to use ListenableFuture and with future.addCallback to know if this process is already done and reassign the topic but I do not see it viable.

Topics don't have load. Brokers do.
A broker can have leader multiple leader partitions of different topics, which clients cannot control.
Therefore, you cannot guarantee that sending data to a new topic (rather, set of partitions) will have less system/network load than another.
Besides that, if you start sending data to other topics, you lose ordering guarantees in both the produced data and the consumer group for any downstream systems.

Kafka offset management on Kafka topic as well as local database

I want to manage offset in Kafka topic as well as the database so that if I want to reprocess in the queue after a certain point I can. How can I proceed on this? Thanks in advance.

Given a PartitionInfo you should be able to tell your consumer to seekToBeginning or seek to an offset in that partition.
A ConsumerRecord knows it's topic, partition and offset. You could record these facts in a database.
But the catch here is if your topics are partitioned. Your data then will be chronological for that category. So if you have two partitions and partition essentially by last name, the name changes for the first half of the alphabet will be sequential, and the second half will be sequential, but it's non obvious how to get a single chronological view of the name changes across the system.
However, if you recorded partition and offset for a particular change in the database, you could seek to that partition and offset and reprocess the stream from that point.
(This becomes irrelevant if you only have one partition, but it's something to think about when/if your topic or streaming architecture needs multiple partitions)
Stepping back from the actual question into theory, I'm not really sure why you would want to do this, as consumer groups will record your committed offset to Kafka itself, thus if your stream processing app crashes you'll be able to pick up from where you left off without worry. This message committing either happens automatically, if you set the enable.auto.commit property, or you can control this manually if you call commitSync() on the consumer. Or you're trying to use an immutable data store (Kafka) as one would a mutable store, but that's just a bit of pure speculation based on the fact that you're not really descriptive with why you want to do the thing you want to do.

Effective strategy to avoid duplicate messages in apache kafka consumer

I have been studying apache kafka for a month now. I am however, stuck at a point now. My use case is, I have two or more consumer processes running on different machines. I ran a few tests in which I published 10,000 messages in kafka server. Then while processing these messages I killed one of the consumer processes and restarted it. Consumers were writing processed messages in a file. So after consumption finished, file was showing more than 10k messages. So some messages were duplicated.
In consumer process I have disabled auto commit. Consumers manually commit offsets batch wise. So for e.g if 100 messages are written to file, consumer commits offsets. When single consumer process is running and it crashes and recovers duplication is avoided in this manner. But when more than one consumers are running and one of them crashes and recovers, it writes duplicate messages to file.
Is there any effective strategy to avoid these duplicate messages?

The short answer is, no.
What you're looking for is exactly-once processing. While it may often seem feasible, it should never be relied upon because there are always caveats.
Even in order to attempt to prevent duplicates you would need to use the simple consumer. How this approach works is for each consumer, when a message is consumed from some partition, write the partition and offset of the consumed message to disk. When the consumer restarts after a failure, read the last consumed offset for each partition from disk.
But even with this pattern the consumer can't guarantee it won't reprocess a message after a failure. What if the consumer consumes a message and then fails before the offset is flushed to disk? If you write to disk before you process the message, what if you write the offset and then fail before actually processing the message? This same problem would exist even if you were to commit offsets to ZooKeeper after every message.
There are some cases, though, where
exactly-once processing is more attainable, but only for certain use cases. This simply requires that your offset be stored in the same location as unit application's output. For instance, if you write a consumer that counts messages, by storing the last counted offset with each count you can guarantee that the offset is stored at the same time as the consumer's state. Of course, in order to guarantee exactly-once processing this would require that you consume exactly one message and update the state exactly once for each message, and that's completely impractical for most Kafka consumer applications. By its nature Kafka consumes messages in batches for performance reasons.
Usually your time will be more well spent and your application will be much more reliable if you simply design it to be idempotent.

This is what Kafka FAQ has to say on the subject of exactly-once:
How do I get exactly-once messaging from Kafka?
Exactly once semantics has two parts: avoiding duplication during data production and avoiding duplicates during data consumption.
There are two approaches to getting exactly once semantics during data production:
Use a single-writer per partition and every time you get a network error check the last message in that partition to see if your last write succeeded
Include a primary key (UUID or something) in the message and deduplicate on the consumer.
If you do one of these things, the log that Kafka hosts will be duplicate-free. However, reading without duplicates depends on some co-operation from the consumer too. If the consumer is periodically checkpointing its position then if it fails and restarts it will restart from the checkpointed position. Thus if the data output and the checkpoint are not written atomically it will be possible to get duplicates here as well. This problem is particular to your storage system. For example, if you are using a database you could commit these together in a transaction. The HDFS loader Camus that LinkedIn wrote does something like this for Hadoop loads. The other alternative that doesn't require a transaction is to store the offset with the data loaded and deduplicate using the topic/partition/offset combination.
I think there are two improvements that would make this a lot easier:
Producer idempotence could be done automatically and much more cheaply by optionally integrating support for this on the server.
The existing high-level consumer doesn't expose a lot of the more fine grained control of offsets (e.g. to reset your position). We will be working on that soon

I agree with RaGe's deduplicate on the consumer side. And we use Redis to deduplicate Kafka message.
Assume the Message class has a member called 'uniqId', which is filled by the producer side and is guaranteed to be unique. We use a 12 length random string. (regexp is '^[A-Za-z0-9]{12}$')
The consumer side use Redis's SETNX to deduplicate and EXPIRE to purge expired keys automatically. Sample code:
Message msg = ... // eg. ConsumerIterator.next().message().fromJson();
Jedis jedis = ... // eg. JedisPool.getResource();
String key = "SPOUT:" + msg.uniqId; // prefix name at will
String val = Long.toString(System.currentTimeMillis());
long rsps = jedis.setnx(key, val);
if (rsps <= 0) {
log.warn("kafka dup: {}", msg.toJson()); // and other logic
} else {
jedis.expire(key, 7200); // 2 hours is ok for production environment;
}
The above code did detect duplicate messages several times when Kafka(version 0.8.x) had situations. With our input/output balance audit log, no message lost or dup happened.

There's a relatively new 'Transactional API' now in Kafka that can allow you to achieve exactly once processing when processing a stream. With the transactional API, idempotency can be built in, as long as the remainder of your system is designed for idempotency. See https://www.baeldung.com/kafka-exactly-once

Whatever done on producer side, still the best way we believe to deliver exactly once from kafka is to handle it on consumer side:
Produce msg with a uuid as the Kafka message Key into topic T1
consumer side read the msg from T1, write it on hbase with uuid as rowkey
read back from hbase with the same rowkey and write to another topic T2
have your end consumers actually consume from topic T2

concurrent consumers yet ensure order

I have a JMS Queue that is populated at a very high rate ( > 100,000/sec ).
It can happen that there can be multiple messages pertaining to the same entity every second as well. ( several updates to entity , with each update as a different message. )
On the other end, I have one consumer that processes this message and sends it to other applications.
Now, the whole set up is slowing down since the consumer is not able to cope up the rate of incoming messages.
Since, there is an SLA on the rate at which consumer processes messages, I have been toying with the idea of having multiple consumers acting in parallel to speed up the process.
So, what Im thinking to do is
Multiple consumers acting independently on the queue.
Each consumer is free to grab any message.
After grabbing a message, make sure its the latest version of the entity. For this, part, I can check with the application that processes this entity.
if its not latest, bump the version up and try again.
I have been looking up the Integration patterns, JMS docs so far without success.
I would welcome ideas to tackle this problem in a more elegant way along with any known APIs, patterns in Java world.

ActiveMQ solves this problem with a concept called "Message Groups". While it's not part of the JMS standard, several JMS-related products work similarly. The basic idea is that you assign each message to a "group" which indicates messages that are related and have to be processed in order. Then you set it up so that each group is delivered only to one consumer. Thus you get load balancing between groups but guarantee in-order delivery within a group.

Most EIP frameworks and ESB's have customizable resequencers. If the amount of entities is not too large you can have a queue per entity and resequence at the beginning.

For those ones interested in a way to solve this:
Use Recipient List EAI pattern
As the question is about JMS, we can take a look into an example from Apache Camel website.
This approach is different from other patterns like CBR and Selective Consumer because the consumer is not aware of what message it should process.
Let me put this on a real world example:
We have an Order Management System (OMS) which sends off Orders to be processed by the ERP. The Order then goes through 6 steps, and each of those steps publishes an event on the Order_queue, informing the new Order's status. Nothing special here.
The OMS consumes the events from that queue, but MUST process the events of each Order in the very same sequence they were published. The rate of messages published per minute is much greater than the consumer's throughput, hence the delay increases over time.
The solution requirements:
Consume in parallel, including as many consumers as needed to keep queue size in a reasonable amount.
Guarantee that events for each Order are processed in the same publish order.
The implementation:
On the OMS side
The OMS process responsible for sending Orders to the ERP, determines the consumer that will process all events of a certain Order and sends the Recipient name along with the Order.
How this process know what should be the Recipient? Well, you can use different approaches, but we used a very simple one: Round Robin.
On ERP
As it keeps the Recipient's name for each Order, it simply setup the message to be delivered to the desired Recipient.
On OMS Consumer
We've deployed 4 instances, each one using a different Recipient name and concurrently processing messages.
One could say that we created another bottleneck: the database. But it is not true, since there is no concurrency on the order line.
One drawback is that the OMS process which sends the Orders to the ERP must keep knowledge about how many Recipients are working.

Is there an API that allows ordering event in clustered application?

Given the following facts, is there a existing open-source Java API (possibly as part of some greater product) that implements an algorithm enabling the reproducible ordering of events in a cluster environment:
1) There are N sources of events, each with a unique ID.
2) Each event produced has an ID/timestamp, which, together with
its source ID, makes it uniquely identifiable.
3) The ids can be used to sort the events.
4) There are M application servers receiving those events.
M is normally 3.
5) The events can arrive at any one or more of the application
servers, in no specific order.
6) The events are processed in batches.
7) The servers have to agree for each batch on the list of events
to process.
8) The event each have earliest and latest batch ID in which they
must be processed.
9) They must not be processed earlier, and are "failed" if they
cannot be processed before the deadline.
10) The batches are based on the real clock time. For example,
one batch per second.
11) The events of a batch are processed when 2 of the 3 servers
agree on the list of events to process for that batch (quorum).
12) The "third" server then has to wait until it possesses all the
required events before it can process that batch too.
13) Once an event was processed or failed, the source has to be
informed.
14) [EDIT] Events from one source must be processed (or failed) in
the order of their ID/timestamp, but there is no causality
between different sources.
Less formally, I have those servers that receive events. They start with the same initial state, and should keep in sync by agreeing on which event to process in which order. Luckily for me, the events are not to be processed ASAP, but "in a bit", so that I have some time to get the servers to agree before the deadline. But I'm not sure if that actually make any real difference to the algorithms. And if all servers agree on all batches, then they will always be in sync, therefore presenting a consistent view when queried.
While I would be most happy with a Java API, I would accept something else if I can call it from Java. And if there is no open-source API, but a clear algorithm, I would also take that as an answer and try to implement it myself.

Looking at the question and your follow-up there probably "wasn't" an API to satisfy your requirements. To day you could take a look at the Kafka (from LinkedIn)
Apache Kafka
And the general concept of "a log" entity, in what folks like to call 'big data':
The Log: What every software engineer should know about real-time data's unifying abstraction
Actually for your question, I'd begin with the blog about "the log". In my terms the way it works -- And Kafka isn't the only package out doing log handling -- Works as follows:
Instead of a queue based message-passing / publish-subscribe
Kafka uses a "log" of messages
Subscribers (or end-points) can consume the log
The log guarantees to be "in-order"; it handles giga-data, is fast
Double check on the guarantee, there's usually a trade-off for reliability
You just read the log, I think reads are destructive as the default.
If there's a subscriber group, everyone can 'read' before the log-entry dies.
The basic handling (compute) process for the log, is a Map-Reduce-Filter model so you read-everything really fast; keep only stuff you want; process it (reduce) produce outcome(s).
The downside seems to be you need clusters and stuff to make it really shine. Since different servers or sites was mentioned I think we are still on track. I found it a finicky to get up-and-running with the Apache downloads because the tend to assume non-Windows environments (ho hum).
The other 'fast' option would be
Apache Apollo
Which would need you to do the plumbing for connecting different servers. Since the requirements include ...
servers that receive events. They start with the same initial state, and should keep in sync by agreeing on which event to process in which order. Luckily for me, the events are not to be processed ASAP, but "in a bit", so that I have some time to get the servers to agree before the deadline
I suggest looking at a "Getting Started" example or tutorial with Kafka and then looking at similar ZooKeeper organised message/log software(s). Good luck and Enjoy!

So far I haven't got a clear answer, but I think it would be useful anyone interested to see what I found.
Here are some theoretical discussions related to the subject:
Dynamic Vector Clocks for Consistent Ordering of Events
Conflict-free Replicated Data Types
One way of making multiple concurent process wait for each other, which I could use to synchronize the "batches" is a distributed barrier. One Java implementation seems to be available on top of Hazelcast and another uses ZooKeeper
One simpler alternative I found is to use a DB. Every process inserts all events it receives into the DB. Depending on the DB design, this can be fully concurrent and lock-free, like in VoltDB, for example. Then at regular interval of one second, some "cron job" runs that selects and marks the events to be processed in the next batch. The job can run on every server. The first to run the job for one batches fixes the set of events, so that the others just get to use the list that the first one defined. Like that we have a guarantee that all batches contain the same set of event on all servers. And if we can use a complete order over the whole batch, which the cron job could specify itself, then the state of the servers will be kept in sync.