I understand your point of view... My requirement is *exact* balancing - parts of our current flow have a consumption processing of around 5 minutes... (and this is an important/expensive part - because it's CPU and memory intensive and we'd like to avoid queueing) so we need EQUAL load balancing - and we need to know when we need to scale/descale. If you pay attention I'm always saying equal load balancing with multiple producers. By that I mean: if I have 10 partitions in a topic and send 10 messages from different producers I expect the load to be exactly divided, 1 message in each partition.
I thought about some possible solutions using Kafka as-is, although there is always a drawback. What Kafka offers out of the box: A) RoundRobinPartitioner - cyclic round robin internal to producer - tends to producer N messages in each single partition before total the number of partition is met (where N is equal to the number of producers). Drawback: unequal balance over short periods of time (depending on the number of producers, where the messages are coming from - which producer, etc). B) DefaultPartitioner - hash of the key modulus total number of partitions - if a random key is used, mathematically (think of big number of messages) should be equally distributed - Drawback: unequal balance over short periods of time. Is that correct / do you agree? Possible options we could think of: 1) A custom partitioner using shared memory between producers to decide the next partition; Drawback - all producers would need to be within the shared memory boundary. 2) Creating a single dummy consumer/producer with RoundRobinpartitioner between two topics "in", where the real producers would send the message to and "out" with multiple partitions where the real consumers would listen to. Drawbacks: Single point of failure (ok, we could have a single partition "in" an extra consumer within the same consumer group that could take if the consumer/producer fails) - I believe we could go far here - making design, maintainability, monitoring, etc worse from an architecture point of view. I didn't understand the atomic counter - I guess maybe would look like number 1? And maybe fanout, like number 2? I believe we should be able to do perfect load balancing, 10 messages received in a topic being distributed to 10 partitions - 20 messages, 20 partitions, no matter who generated them. The thing is that currently the broker receives messages on the partition level only. No way to send them on a topic level and redistribute We are currently paying extra idle machines - my ideas are either: i) make sure we are not missing something (maybe some of our assumptions are wrong and we have easy ootb options) ii) if we are not missing something going with option 1 (and limiting our producers to be within the shared mem boundaries) iii) Checking the feasibility(how hard would it be?)/acceptance of the community of doing this in Kafka by submitting a KIP Thanks once again! On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 9:09 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > This is a bit frustrating since you keep saying that the load is not > balanced, but the load actually is balanced, it's just balanced in an > approximate fashion. If you need exact balancing (for example, because > you're creating a job scheduler or something), then you need to use a > different strategy. One example would be using an external atomic counter > to determine what partition the producers should send the messages to. > Another would be using a single consumer with fanout. I think this is > outside the scope of Kafka, at least if I understand the problem here (?) > > best, > Colin > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020, at 11:32, Vinicius Scheidegger wrote: > > Hi Collin, > > > > One producer shouldn't need to know about the other to distribute the > load > > equally, but what Kafka has now is roughly equal... > > If you have a single producer RounRobinPartitioner works fine, if you > have > > 10 producers you can have 7/8 messages in one partition while another > > partition has none (producers are in sync - which happened a couple times > > in our tests). > > > > Producer0 getNext() = partition0 > > Producer1 getNext() = partition0 > > Producer2 getNext() = partition0 > > > > A link to some of our test data prints: > > https://imgur.com/a/ha9OQMj > > > > This, depending on how intensive (slow) your consumption rate is, may be > a > > problem as it will generate enqueuing. > > We use Kafka as a messaging protocol in a big (and in some points heavy > > load) machine learning flow - for high throughput (lightweight > processing) > > enqueuing is not an issue - añthough we saw it happening. but for heavy > > processes we are unable to do equal load balance. > > > > We currently use the DefaultPartitioner and Kafka algorithm (murmur2 hash > > of the key) to decide the partition. > > We noticed enqueuing and timeouts while several consumers were idle - > which > > made us take a better look on how the load is balanced. > > > > I believe the only way to perform equal load balance without having to > know > > other producers would be to do it on the Broker side. Do you agree? > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 7:32 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi Vinicius, > > > > > > It's actually not necessary for one producer to know about the others > to > > > get an even distribution across partitions, right? All that's really > > > required is that all producers produce a roughly equal amount of data > to > > > each partition, which is what RoundRobinPartitioner is designed to > do. In > > > mathematical terms, the sum of several uniform random variables is > itself > > > uniformly random. > > > > > > (There is a bug in RRP right now, KAFKA-9965, but it's not related to > what > > > we're talking about now and we have a fix ready.) > > > > > > cheers, > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2020, at 14:26, Vinicius Scheidegger wrote: > > > > Hi Collin, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. Actually the RoundRobinPartitioner won't do an > > > equal > > > > distribution when working with multiple producers. One producer does > not > > > > know the others. If you consider that producers are randomly > producing > > > > messages, in the worst case scenario all producers can be synced and > one > > > > could have as many messages in a single partition as the number of > > > > producers. > > > > It's easy to generate evidences of it. > > > > > > > > I have asked this question on the users mail list too (and on Slack > and > > > on > > > > Stackoverflow). > > > > > > > > Kafka currently does not have means to do a round robin across > multiple > > > > producers or on the broker side. > > > > > > > > This means there is currently NO GUARANTEE of equal distribution > across > > > > partitions as the partition election is decided by the producer. > > > > > > > > There result is an unbalanced consumption when working with consumer > > > groups > > > > and the options are: creating a custom shared partitioner, relying on > > > Kafka > > > > random partition or introducing a middle man between topics (all of > them > > > > having big cons). > > > > > > > > I thought of asking here to see whether this is a topic that could > > > concern > > > > other developers (and maybe understand whether this could be a KIP > > > > discussion) > > > > > > > > Maybe I'm missing something... I would like to know. > > > > > > > > According to my interpretation of the code (just read through some > > > > classes), but there is currently no way to do partition balancing on > the > > > > broker - the producer sends messages directly to partition leaders so > > > > partition currently needs to be defined on the producer. > > > > > > > > I understand that in order to perform round robin across partitions > of a > > > > topic when working with multiple producers, some development needs > to be > > > > done. Am I right? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, 10:57 PM Colin McCabe <cmcc...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > HI Vinicius, > > > > > > > > > > This question seems like a better fit for the user mailing list > rather > > > > > than the developer mailing list. > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, if I understand correctly, you are asking if the producer > can > > > > > choose to assign partitions in a round-robin fashion rather than > based > > > on > > > > > the key. The answer is, you can, by using RoundRobinPartitioner. > > > (again, > > > > > if I'm understanding the question correctly). > > > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > Colin > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, at 00:48, Vinicius Scheidegger wrote: > > > > > > Anyone? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:42 PM Vinicius Scheidegger < > > > > > > vinicius.scheideg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does anyone know how could I perform a load balance to > distribute > > > > > equally > > > > > > > the messages to all consumers within the same consumer group > having > > > > > > > multiple producers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this a conceptual flaw on Kafka, wasn't it thought for equal > > > > > > > distribution with multiple producers or am I missing something? > > > > > > > I've asked on Stack Overflow, on Kafka users mailing group, > here > > > (on > > > > > Kafka > > > > > > > Devs) and on Slack - and still have no definitive answer > (actually > > > > > most of > > > > > > > the time I got no answer at all) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would something like this even be possible in the way Kafka is > > > > > currently > > > > > > > designed? > > > > > > > How does proposing for a KIP work? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020, 3:44 PM Vinicius Scheidegger < > > > > > > > vinicius.scheideg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I'm trying to understand a little bit more about how Kafka > works. > > > > > > >> I have a design with multiple producers writing to a single > topic > > > and > > > > > > >> multiple consumers in a single Consumer Group consuming > message > > > from > > > > > this > > > > > > >> topic. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> My idea is to distribute the messages from all producers > equally. > > > From > > > > > > >> reading the documentation I understood that the partition is > > > always > > > > > > >> selected by the producer. Is that correct? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> I'd also like to know if there is an out of the box option to > > > assign > > > > > the > > > > > > >> partition via a round robin *on the broker side *to guarantee > > > equal > > > > > > >> distribution of the load - if possible to each consumer, but > if > > > not > > > > > > >> possible, at least to each partition. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> If my understanding is correct, it looks like in a multiple > > > producer > > > > > > >> scenario there is lack of support from Kafka regarding load > > > balancing > > > > > and > > > > > > >> customers have to either stick to the hash of the key (random > > > > > distribution, > > > > > > >> although it would guarantee same key goes to the same > partition) > > > or > > > > > they > > > > > > >> have to create their own logic on the producer side (i.e. by > > > sharing > > > > > memory) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Am I missing something? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thank you, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Vinicius Scheidegger > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
