Hi, Google doc is better for discussion, your design is great, now we could discuss more details base on it.
Any advice is welcome from RocketMQ community. Appreciate your efforts. Regards, yukon On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 5:15 AM, Sohaib Iftikhar <sohaib1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > @Yukon Thank you for your reply. This clears some doubts. > > Sorry for the delay as I was somewhat occupied with another project. I have > created an initial design doc. Email is a bit cumbersome for feedback I > wrote this document in two formats: > > 1. In the form of a Google document: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KSpXGNDH0HF5E27lfKJxJnjIjPtlP > 1Q-M6rj3yZde24. > The document is open for comments to all users without signing in. I would > appreciate it if you put your name before the comment so I can identify who > to follow up the discussion with. > > 2. As a markdown on github: > https://github.com/sohaibiftikhar/rocketmq/blob/gsoc_design/gsoc_design.md > . > The comments for this can be made on the commit: > https://github.com/sohaibiftikhar/rocketmq/commit/ > dfd55fc69f430fc024217a3b20dde31717334e62 > > After I have received a certain amount of feedback I will try to > incorporate it and put in a subsequent version for review. Please tell me > which methods suits you better (gdoc or github) for review and we can > continue with that for the subsequent versions. > > Lastly, the document is a couple of pages so I appreciate your patience and > your help. > Looking forward to your opinions. > > Thanks, > Sohaib > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:01 PM, yukon <yu...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hi Sohaib, > > > > Sorry for the late reply, we could move this project forward now ~ > > > > ``` > > I would at some point like to post > > design ideas to this problem privately to get it reviewed by the > > development community but not make it publicly available so that it > cannot > > be plagiarised. > > ``` > > > > You can send your design ideas to me directly or to our PMC list( > > priv...@rocketmq.apache.org) if you want to make your ideas privately. > But > > please don't break away from the community. > > > > I hope you have already understood the goal of this project. Now, > RocketMQ > > support At-least-once delivery, it's an obvious solution > > that achieves Exactly-Once by removing duplicated messages. > > > > Return to your original questions: > > > > 1. What defines a redundant message? > > > > A message id will be generated when new a message, so this id can be used > > to identify a message. Also, the user could specify a unique > > business-related property to identify a message. > > > > The redundant messages will occur when the network is broken or > > reconnected, rebalance[1] is triggered, etc. > > > > > > 2. Is their a timeline on the redundant messages? > > > > Yes, keep all messages nonredundant is expensive, let's consider this > > question within a certain time window ~ > > > > Looking forward to your design. > > > > [1]. > > https://github.com/apache/rocketmq/blob/master/client/ > > src/main/java/org/apache/rocketmq/client/impl/consumer/ > > RebalanceService.java > > > > > > Regards, > > yukon > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:31 PM, Sohaib Iftikhar <sohaib1...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > @Zhanhui Thanks for the response. This is not a campaign its just part > of > > > GSoC (https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/). And community help is > > gladly > > > welcomed. In fact, it is recommended :) > > > > > > @KaiYuan Thanks for your suggestions. I will come up with a flow chart > > for > > > the proposed solution this weekend. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sohaib > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 3:41 AM, Zhanhui Li <lizhan...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Sohaib, > > > > > > > > I have been sort of busy this these days. Sorry to reply you so late! > > > > > > > > So sure what “deadline” you are referring to. If this is part of a > > > > campaign, I have to admit I am not aware of the regulations and what > > kind > > > > of help I should offer to maintain fairness considering other arising > > > > similar issues. > > > > > > > > Regards! > > > > > > > > Zhanhui Li > > > > > > > > > > > > > 在 2018年3月1日，上午3:43，Sohaib Iftikhar <sohaib1...@gmail.com> 写道： > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > > > Would be nice to have some feedback on this as the deadline is not > > too > > > > far :) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Sohaib > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sohaib Iftikhar > > > > > > > > > > -- Man is still the most extraordinary computer of all.-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 10:36 AM, Sohaib Iftikhar < > > > sohaib1...@gmail.com > > > > <mailto:sohaib1...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > Thank you for the pointers to the code. This was super helpful. The > > > > multiple keys can probably be serialized better than separating them > > > with a > > > > space but that is already legacy I suppose. > > > > > > > > > > Firstly filters like bloom or cuckoo are heuristic. They can help > > make > > > > things faster but definitely cannot be used as the only solution. > > Hence, > > > in > > > > the end, we will still need a persistent keystore/distributed set. My > > > plan > > > > was to have this keystore as distributed (raft guarantee etc.). The > > > > keystore can also hold a persistent filter on its end. If a broker > > > > collapses it can renew/refresh its filter from the keystore. Hence > > > > eliminating the problems about crashes that you mention. The problem > > here > > > > could be in maintaining performance for filters in case of removals > > from > > > > the keystore (for eg: sliding windows as mentioned in my previous > > mail). > > > > Periodic refreshal of filters can help solve this but I am open to > > > > suggestions on how to make this better. > > > > > > > > > > I think implementing a distributed set on the client cluster has > its > > > > caveats. The way I understand RocketMQ is that we do not have control > > > over > > > > the diskspace/memory on the client end. So we probably only have a > > > constant > > > > amount. A distributed set on the client would also need to be > > persistent. > > > > For eg: if a client restarts/recovers etc. This basically means we > > need a > > > > keystore on the client instead of the broker cluster. This probably > > puts > > > > too much responsibility on the client cluster. A different approach > > would > > > > be to ensure that the offsets are always in sync with the broker. > Since > > > the > > > > broker only serves unique messages (based on the proposed solution on > > the > > > > producer/broker end) all we need to ensure is that a client does not > > > > consume messages with the same offset twice. > > > > > > > > > > Please suggest improvements if this does not look like the correct > > > > approach. Also would be great if someone can come up with a > completely > > > > different approach so that we can weigh up pros and cons. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for reading this through and looking forward to your > opinions. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sohaib > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Sohaib Iftikhar > > > > > > > > > > -- Man is still the most extraordinary computer of all.-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 3:58 AM, Zhanhui Li <lizhan...@gmail.com > > > > <mailto:lizhan...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > Hi Sohaib, > > > > > > > > > > About multiple key support, the following code snippet should > clarify > > > > your doubt: > > > > > org.apache.rocketmq.common.message.Message class has overloaded > > > setKeys > > > > methods, allowing your to set multiple keys via string(separated by > > > > space…sorry, we have not yet unified all separators, hoping this does > > not > > > > confuse you) or collection. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When broker tries to build index for the message with multiple > keys, > > > > multiple index entries are inserted into the indexing file. > > > > > See org.apache.rocketmq.store.index.IndexService#buildIndex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In terms of eliminating message duplication, personally, I wish we > > have > > > > a feature of exactly-once semantic covering the whole cluster and the > > > > complete send-store-consume processes. A rough idea is route the > > message > > > > according to its unique key to a broker according to a rule; The > > serving > > > > broker ensures uniqueness of the message according to the key( as you > > > said, > > > > bloom-filter/cuckoo-filter, etc); Things might looks simple, but > > issues > > > > resides in scenarios where cluster is experiencing membership > changes: > > > for > > > > example, what if a broker crashed down? We might need propagate > > > > bloom-filter bitset synchronously to other brokers having the same > > > topics; > > > > What if a new broker joins in the cluster and starts to serve? I do > not > > > > mean this is too complex to implement. Instead, this is a pretty > > > > interesting topic and fancy feature to have. Alternatively, we might > > > defer > > > > eliminating duplicates to the consumption phase using kind of > > distributed > > > > set. For sure, my proposing idea suffers the same challenges > including > > > > membership changes. > > > > > > > > > > Guys of dev board, any insights on this issue? > > > > > > > > > > Zhanhui Li > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> 在 2018年2月26日，上午2:47，Sohaib Iftikhar <sohaib1...@gmail.com > <mailto: > > > > sohaib1...@gmail.com>> 写道： > > > > >> > > > > >> Hi Zhanhui, > > > > >> > > > > >> I have a doubt about these multiple keys. If I am wrong in any of > > the > > > > >> assumptions I make please point it out. > > > > >> > > > > >> If there is support for multiple keys I cannot see this in the > code. > > > The > > > > >> class Message only stores a single key in the property map against > > the > > > > >> property name "KEYS". Is this also done in the same ways as tags? > > That > > > > is > > > > >> different keys are separated with ' || '? So basically as a user > of > > > the > > > > >> producer API it is the user's responsibility to ensure that he > > > separates > > > > >> the different keys with the correct separator. I can see an > obvious > > > > problem > > > > >> here. What if the key contains this special character ' || '? But > > > maybe > > > > >> this event is rare and hence this is not important. Could you > point > > me > > > > to > > > > >> some source/doc that explains this part? I was looking at the > index > > > > section > > > > >> rocketmq-store but I have not been able to understand the indexing > > > > process > > > > >> completely for now. I will keep reading the source to get a better > > > idea. > > > > >> > > > > >> Moving on to the implementational details. Here is a broad idea of > > one > > > > >> possible way to approach it. > > > > >> > > > > >> The attempt is to remove duplicate messages. In this issue, I > would > > > > like to > > > > >> aim at eliminating duplicate messages at the producer/broker end. > > For > > > > now, > > > > >> we do not concern ourselves with the duplicate messages happening > > due > > > to > > > > >> unwritten consumer offsets as these two issues have different > > > solutions. > > > > >> One way to solve this problem at the producer/broker end could be > to > > > > have a > > > > >> distributed key store that stores the messages. We can make it > > > > configurable > > > > >> such that this distributed store stores all messages or works as a > > > > sliding > > > > >> window keeping only the messages from the last X seconds specified > > by > > > > the > > > > >> user. We can have a layer on top to check set membership such as a > > > bloom > > > > >> filter or a cuckoo filter ( > > > > >> https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/papers/cuckoo-conext2014.pdf < > > > > https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/papers/cuckoo-conext2014.pdf>) to help > > > > >> performance. Every message being pushed in by a producer are > checked > > > in > > > > >> first with the filter and in case of a positive result with this > key > > > > store. > > > > >> If the message is found then it is discarded. This helps remove > > > > duplicates > > > > >> completely from a producer perspective. The core of this idea is > the > > > > >> distributed key store which would be completely separate from the > > > > current > > > > >> message storage. Since the concept of a distributed key store or a > > > > >> key/value store is not novel there are two ways to this. > > > > >> 1. Implement it ourselves. This would be high effort but no > external > > > > >> dependencies. > > > > >> 2. Use a key-value store such as Redis (which already has timeouts > > and > > > > >> persistence but a large memory footprint) or some other disk-based > > > > storage > > > > >> for set membership. This would include an external dependency but > > > > >> development time will reduce significantly for such a solution. > > > > >> I am inclined towards implementing it by myself as this would > avoid > > > > >> dependencies on other products especially since RocketMQ is > > currently > > > a > > > > >> self-reliant system. In addition, my past experience with building > > > such > > > > a > > > > >> store should also come in handy. > > > > >> > > > > >> I would like to know the opinions of the development community on > > this > > > > >> approach and to suggest improvements on it. Looking forward to > your > > > > >> responses to this. > > > > >> > > > > >> ====<question unrelated to issue>===== > > > > >> To increase my familiarity with the code base and to help prove > > that I > > > > am > > > > >> familiar with the tools and technologies in place it would be > great > > > if I > > > > >> could be pointed to some low effort issues that I could help out > > with. > > > > In > > > > >> case there are no 'newbie' issues available I could help improve > the > > > > >> comments inside the codebase. I noticed some source files with no > > > > >> explanations which can be documented via comments to help onboard > a > > > new > > > > >> contributor faster. > > > > >> ====</question unrelated to issue>===== > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks a lot for reading this through and looking forward to your > > > > opinions. > > > > >> > > > > >> Regards, > > > > >> Sohaib > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Zhanhui Li <lizhan...@gmail.com > > > > <mailto:lizhan...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Hi Sohaib, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Happy to know you are interested in RocketMQ. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> First, let me answer questions you raised. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> — can there be multiple tags? > > > > >>> No. At present, the storage engine allows single tag only. > > > > Subscriptions > > > > >>> are allowed to use combination of tags. The current model should > > meet > > > > your > > > > >>> business development. If not, please let us know. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> — key (Similar question to above.) > > > > >>> RocketMQ builds index using message keys. A single message may > have > > > > >>> multiple keys. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> — About redundant message > > > > >>> From my understanding, you are trying to eliminate duplicate > > > messages. > > > > >>> True there are various reasons which may cause message > duplication, > > > > ranging > > > > >>> from message delivery and consumption. Discussion on this topic > is > > > > warmly > > > > >>> welcome. Had you had any idea to contribute on this issue, the > > > > developer > > > > >>> board is happy to discuss. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Zhanhui Li > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> 在 2018年2月24日，上午11:17，Sohaib Iftikhar <sohaib1...@gmail.com > > <mailto: > > > > sohaib1...@gmail.com>> 写道： > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> My earlier email message seems to have gotten lost. So I will > try > > > > again. > > > > >>>> Please see the original message for the discussion. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Regards, > > > > >>>> Sohaib Iftikhar > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -- Man is still the most extraordinary computer of all.-- > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Sohaib Iftikhar < > > > > sohaib1...@gmail.com <mailto:sohaib1...@gmail.com>> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Hi, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I am interested in working on this issue ( > > > https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > <https://issues.apache.org/> > > > > >>>>> jira/browse/ROCKETMQ-124) as part of GSOC-18. I have a few > > > questions > > > > for > > > > >>>>> the same. I am not sure if this discussion needs to be on the > > JIRA > > > > >>> issue or > > > > >>>>> here. Feel free to correct me if this is the wrong platform. > Also > > > > while > > > > >>> I > > > > >>>>> have worked with distributed pub-sub systems I am still fairly > > new > > > to > > > > >>>>> Rocket-MQ so maybe my understanding of it is incorrect. I > > apologise > > > > if > > > > >>> that > > > > >>>>> is the case and would be happy to stand corrected. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Following are my questions: > > > > >>>>> 1. What defines a redundant message? > > > > >>>>> The constructor that I see for a message is as follows: > > > > >>>>> Message(String topic, String tags, String keys, int flag, > > byte[] > > > > >>> body, > > > > >>>>> boolean waitStoreMsgOK) > > > > >>>>> Possible candidates to me are topic, tags (can there be > > multiple > > > > >>> tags? > > > > >>>>> I could not find an example for this. If yes how are they > > > > separated?), > > > > >>> keys > > > > >>>>> (Similar question to above.) and of course the body. Is there > > > > something > > > > >>>>> that I have missed in this? Is there something that we do not > > need > > > to > > > > >>>>> consider? > > > > >>>>> 2. Is their a timeline on the redundant messages? What I mean > by > > > > this is > > > > >>>>> that is there a time limit after which a message with similar > > > > content is > > > > >>>>> allowed. From what I gather there was no such thing mentioned. > > This > > > > >>> would > > > > >>>>> mean storing all the messages. Depending on the requirements > this > > > > may or > > > > >>>>> may not be the best solution. It might be desirable that no > > > > duplicates > > > > >>> are > > > > >>>>> needed within a certain time window (sliding). This allows > > ignoring > > > > of > > > > >>>>> duplicate messages that were generated very close to each other > > (or > > > > in > > > > >>> the > > > > >>>>> window indicated). Depending on this requirement implementation > > may > > > > >>> become > > > > >>>>> a little bit more involved. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> For now, these are the only questions. I have ideas that need > > > review > > > > >>> about > > > > >>>>> possible implementations but I will mention them once the > > > > specifications > > > > >>>>> are clear to me. As an end question, I would at some point like > > to > > > > post > > > > >>>>> design ideas to this problem privately to get it reviewed by > the > > > > >>>>> development community but not make it publicly available so > that > > it > > > > >>> cannot > > > > >>>>> be plagiarised. What platform/method can I use to do that? Or > is > > > > >>> submitting > > > > >>>>> a draft to the Google platform the only possible way to > > accomplish > > > > this? > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Thanks a lot for reading this through and looking forward to > your > > > > >>> inputs. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Regards, > > > > >>>>> Sohaib Iftikhar > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
