Stefan, would you have time to comment? On Wednesday, January 2, 2019, Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> wrote:
> Bump – does anyone know if Stefan will be available to comment the latest > findings? Thanks. > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 2:33 PM Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> wrote: > >> Stefan, I managed to analyze savepoint with bravo. It seems that the data >> that's missing from output *is* found in savepoint. >> >> I simplified my test case to the following: >> >> - job 1 has bee running for ~10 days >> - savepoint X created & job 1 cancelled >> - job 2 started with restore from savepoint X >> >> Then I waited until the next day so that job 2 has triggered the 24 hour >> window. >> >> Then I analyzed the output & savepoint: >> >> - compare job 2 output with the output of a batch pyspark script => find >> 4223 missing rows >> - pick one of the missing rows (say, id Z) >> - read savepoint X with bravo, filter for id Z => Z was found in the >> savepoint! >> >> How can it be possible that the value is in state but doesn't end up in >> output after state has been restored & window is eventually triggered? >> >> I also did similar analysis on the previous case where I savepointed & >> restored the job multiple times (5) within the same 24-hour window. A >> missing id that I drilled down to, was found in all of those savepoints, >> yet missing from the output that gets written at the end of the day. This >> is even more surprising: that the missing ID was written to the new >> savepoints also after restoring. Is the reducer state somehow decoupled >> from the window contents? >> >> Big thanks to bravo-developer Gyula for guiding me through to be able >> read the reducer state! https://github.com/king/bravo/pull/11 >> >> Gyula also had an idea for how to troubleshoot the missing data in a >> scalable way: I could add some "side effect kafka output" on individual >> operators. This should allow tracking more closely at which point the data >> gets lost. However, maybe this would have to be in some Flink's internal >> components, and I'm not sure which those would be. >> >> Cheers, >> Juho >> >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:52 AM Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Stefan, >>> >>> Bravo doesn't currently support reading a reducer state. I gave it a try >>> but couldn't get to a working implementation yet. If anyone can provide >>> some insight on how to make this work, please share at github: >>> https://github.com/king/bravo/pull/11 >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:32 PM Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I was glad to find that bravo had now been updated to support >>>> installing bravo to a local maven repo. >>>> >>>> I was able to load a checkpoint created by my job, thanks to the >>>> example provided in bravo README, but I'm still missing the essential >>>> piece. >>>> >>>> My code was: >>>> >>>> OperatorStateReader reader = new OperatorStateReader(env2, >>>> savepoint, "DistinctFunction"); >>>> DontKnowWhatTypeThisIs reducingState = >>>> reader.readKeyedStates(what should I put here?); >>>> >>>> I don't know how to read the values collected from reduce() calls in >>>> the state. Is there a way to access the reducing state of the window with >>>> bravo? I'm a bit confused how this works, because when I check with >>>> debugger, flink internally uses a ReducingStateDescriptor >>>> with name=window-contents, but still reading operator state for >>>> "DistinctFunction" didn't at least throw an exception ("window-contents" >>>> threw – obviously there's no operator by that name). >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Juho >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:25 PM Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Stefan, >>>>> >>>>> Sorry but it doesn't seem immediately clear to me what's a good way to >>>>> use https://github.com/king/bravo. >>>>> >>>>> How are people using it? Would you for example modify build.gradle >>>>> somehow to publish the bravo as a library locally/internally? Or add code >>>>> directly in the bravo project (locally) and run it from there (using an >>>>> IDE, for example)? Also it doesn't seem like the bravo gradle project >>>>> supports building a flink job jar, but if it does, how do I do it? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:30 PM Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Good then, I'll try to analyze the savepoints with Bravo. Thanks! >>>>>> >>>>>> > How would you assume that backpressure would influence your >>>>>> updates? Updates to each local state still happen event-by-event, in a >>>>>> single reader/writing thread. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, just an ignorant guess by me. I'm not familiar with most of >>>>>> Flink's internals. Any way high backpressure is not a seen on this job >>>>>> after it has caught up the lag, so at I thought it would be worth >>>>>> mentioning. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:24 PM Stefan Richter < >>>>>> s.rich...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 04.10.2018 um 16:08 schrieb Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > you could take a look at Bravo [1] to query your savepoints and to >>>>>>> check if the state in the savepoint complete w.r.t your expectations >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks. I'm not 100% if this is the case, but to me it seemed like >>>>>>> the missed ids were being logged by the reducer soon after the job had >>>>>>> started (after restoring a savepoint). But on the other hand, after >>>>>>> that I >>>>>>> also made another savepoint & restored that, so what I could check is: >>>>>>> does >>>>>>> that next savepoint have the missed ids that were logged (a couple of >>>>>>> minutes before the savepoint was created, so there should've been more >>>>>>> than >>>>>>> enough time to add them to the state before the savepoint was >>>>>>> triggered) or >>>>>>> not. Any way, if I would be able to verify with Bravo that the ids are >>>>>>> missing from the savepoint (even though reduced logged that it saw >>>>>>> them), >>>>>>> would that help in figuring out where they are lost? Is there some major >>>>>>> difference compared to just looking at the final output after window has >>>>>>> been triggered? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that makes a difference. For example, you can investigate if >>>>>>> there is a state loss or a problem with the windowing. In the savepoint >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> could see which keys exists and to which windows they are assigned. Also >>>>>>> just to make sure there is no misunderstanding: only elements that are >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the state at the start of a savepoint are expected to be part of the >>>>>>> savepoint; all elements between start and completion of the savepoint >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> not expected to be part of the savepoint. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > I also doubt that the problem is about backpressure after restore, >>>>>>> because the job will only continue running after the state restore is >>>>>>> already completed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I'm not suspecting that the state restoring would be the >>>>>>> problem either. My concern was about backpressure possibly messing with >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> updates of reducing state? I would tend to suspect that updating the >>>>>>> state >>>>>>> consistently is what fails, where heavy load / backpressure might be a >>>>>>> factor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How would you assume that backpressure would influence your updates? >>>>>>> Updates to each local state still happen event-by-event, in a single >>>>>>> reader/writing thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 4:18 PM Stefan Richter < >>>>>>> s.rich...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> you could take a look at Bravo [1] to query your savepoints and to >>>>>>>> check if the state in the savepoint complete w.r.t your expectations. I >>>>>>>> somewhat doubt that there is a general problem with the >>>>>>>> state/savepoints >>>>>>>> because many users are successfully running it on a large state and I >>>>>>>> am >>>>>>>> not aware of any data loss problems, but nothing is impossible. What >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> savepoint does is also straight forward: iterate a db snapshot and >>>>>>>> write >>>>>>>> all key/value pairs to disk, so all data that was in the db at the >>>>>>>> time of >>>>>>>> the savepoint, should show up. I also doubt that the problem is about >>>>>>>> backpressure after restore, because the job will only continue running >>>>>>>> after the state restore is already completed. Did you check if you are >>>>>>>> using exactly-one-semantics or at-least-once semantics? Also did you >>>>>>>> check >>>>>>>> that the kafka consumer start position is configured properly [2]? Are >>>>>>>> watermarks generated as expected after restore? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> One more unrelated high-level comment that I have: for a >>>>>>>> granularity of 24h windows, I wonder if it would not make sense to use >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> batch job instead? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> Stefan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/king/bravo >>>>>>>> [2] https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs- >>>>>>>> stable/dev/connectors/kafka.html#kafka-consumers-start- >>>>>>>> position-configuration >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am 04.10.2018 um 14:53 schrieb Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com>: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the suggestions! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > In general, it would be tremendously helpful to have a minimal >>>>>>>> working example which allows to reproduce the problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Definitely. The problem with reproducing has been that this only >>>>>>>> seems to happen in the bigger production data volumes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's why I'm hoping to find a way to debug this with the >>>>>>>> production data. With that it seems to consistently cause some misses >>>>>>>> every >>>>>>>> time the job is killed/restored. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > check if it happens for shorter windows, like 1h etc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What would be the benefit of that compared to 24h window? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > simplify the job to not use a reduce window but simply a time >>>>>>>> window which outputs the window events. Then counting the input and >>>>>>>> output >>>>>>>> events should allow you to verify the results. If you are not seeing >>>>>>>> missing events, then it could have something to do with the reducing >>>>>>>> state >>>>>>>> used in the reduce function. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hm, maybe, but not sure how useful that would be, because it >>>>>>>> wouldn't yet prove that it's related to reducing, because not having a >>>>>>>> reduce function could also mean smaller load on the job, which might >>>>>>>> alone >>>>>>>> be enough to make the problem not manifest. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is there a way to debug what goes into the reducing state >>>>>>>> (including what gets removed or overwritten and what restored), if that >>>>>>>> makes sense..? Maybe some suitable logging could be used to prove that >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> lost data is written to the reducing state (or at least asked to be >>>>>>>> written), but not found any more when the window closes and state is >>>>>>>> flushed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On configuration once more, we're using RocksDB state backend with >>>>>>>> asynchronous incremental checkpointing. The state is restored from >>>>>>>> savepoints though, we haven't been using those checkpoints in these >>>>>>>> tests >>>>>>>> (although they could be used in case of crashes – but we haven't had >>>>>>>> those >>>>>>>> now). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 3:25 PM Till Rohrmann <trohrm...@apache.org> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Juho, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> another idea to further narrow down the problem could be to >>>>>>>>> simplify the job to not use a reduce window but simply a time window >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> outputs the window events. Then counting the input and output events >>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>>> allow you to verify the results. If you are not seeing missing >>>>>>>>> events, then >>>>>>>>> it could have something to do with the reducing state used in the >>>>>>>>> reduce >>>>>>>>> function. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In general, it would be tremendously helpful to have a minimal >>>>>>>>> working example which allows to reproduce the problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Till >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 2:02 PM Andrey Zagrebin < >>>>>>>>> and...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Juho, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can you try to reduce the job to minimal reproducible example and >>>>>>>>>> share the job and input? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For example: >>>>>>>>>> - some simple records as input, e.g. tuples of primitive types >>>>>>>>>> saved as cvs >>>>>>>>>> - minimal deduplication job which processes them and misses >>>>>>>>>> records >>>>>>>>>> - check if it happens for shorter windows, like 1h etc >>>>>>>>>> - setup which you use for the job, ideally locally reproducible >>>>>>>>>> or cloud >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Andrey >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 4 Oct 2018, at 11:13, Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry to insist, but we seem to be blocked for any serious usage >>>>>>>>>> of state in Flink if we can't rely on it to not miss data in case of >>>>>>>>>> restore. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Would anyone have suggestions for how to troubleshoot this? So >>>>>>>>>> far I have verified with DEBUG logs that our reduce function gets to >>>>>>>>>> process also the data that is missing from window output. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:56 AM Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrey, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To rule out for good any questions about sink behaviour, the job >>>>>>>>>>> was killed and started with an additional Kafka sink. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The same number of ids were missed in both outputs: KafkaSink & >>>>>>>>>>> BucketingSink. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I wonder what would be the next steps in debugging? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 3:49 PM Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Andrey. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > so it means that the savepoint does not loose at least some >>>>>>>>>>>> dropped records. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by that? I mean, it was known from >>>>>>>>>>>> the beginning, that not everything is lost before/after restoring a >>>>>>>>>>>> savepoint, just some records around the time of restoration. It's >>>>>>>>>>>> not 100% >>>>>>>>>>>> clear whether records are lost before making a savepoint or after >>>>>>>>>>>> restoring >>>>>>>>>>>> it. Although, based on the new DEBUG logs it seems more like >>>>>>>>>>>> losing some >>>>>>>>>>>> records that are seen ~soon after restoring. It seems like Flink >>>>>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>>>>> somehow confused either about the restored state vs. new inserts >>>>>>>>>>>> to state. >>>>>>>>>>>> This could also be somehow linked to the high back pressure on the >>>>>>>>>>>> kafka >>>>>>>>>>>> source while the stream is catching up. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> > If it is feasible for your setup, I suggest to insert one >>>>>>>>>>>> more map function after reduce and before sink. >>>>>>>>>>>> > etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't that the same thing that we discussed before? Nothing is >>>>>>>>>>>> sent to BucketingSink before the window closes, so I don't see how >>>>>>>>>>>> it would >>>>>>>>>>>> make any difference if we replace the BucketingSink with a map >>>>>>>>>>>> function or >>>>>>>>>>>> another sink type. We don't create or restore savepoints during >>>>>>>>>>>> the time >>>>>>>>>>>> when BucketingSink gets input or has open buckets – that happens >>>>>>>>>>>> at a much >>>>>>>>>>>> later time of day. I would focus on figuring out why the records >>>>>>>>>>>> are lost >>>>>>>>>>>> while the window is open. But I don't know how to do that. Would >>>>>>>>>>>> you have >>>>>>>>>>>> any additional suggestions? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 3:30 PM Andrey Zagrebin < >>>>>>>>>>>> and...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juho, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> so it means that the savepoint does not loose at least some >>>>>>>>>>>>> dropped records. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is feasible for your setup, I suggest to insert one more >>>>>>>>>>>>> map function after reduce and before sink. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The map function should be called right after window is >>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered but before flushing to s3. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The result of reduce (deduped record) could be logged there. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This should allow to check whether the processed distinct >>>>>>>>>>>>> records were buffered in the state after the restoration from the >>>>>>>>>>>>> savepoint >>>>>>>>>>>>> or not. If they were buffered we should see that there was an >>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to >>>>>>>>>>>>> write them to the sink from the state. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Another suggestion is to try to write records to some other >>>>>>>>>>>>> sink or to both. >>>>>>>>>>>>> E.g. if you can access file system of workers, maybe just into >>>>>>>>>>>>> local files and check whether the records are also dropped there. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Sep 2018, at 15:37, Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrey! >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I was finally able to gather the DEBUG logs that you >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested. In short, the reducer logged that it processed at >>>>>>>>>>>>> least some of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ids that were missing from the output. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "At least some", because I didn't have the job running with >>>>>>>>>>>>> DEBUG logs for the full 24-hour window period. So I was only able >>>>>>>>>>>>> to look >>>>>>>>>>>>> up if I can find *some* of the missing ids in the DEBUG logs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which I did indeed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I changed the DistinctFunction.java to do this: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override >>>>>>>>>>>>> public Map<String, String> reduce(Map<String, String> >>>>>>>>>>>>> value1, Map<String, String> value2) { >>>>>>>>>>>>> LOG.debug("DistinctFunction.reduce returns: {}={}", >>>>>>>>>>>>> value1.get("field"), value1.get("id")); >>>>>>>>>>>>> return value1; >>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vi flink-1.6.0/conf/log4j.properties >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j.logger.org.apache.flink.streaming.runtime.tasks. >>>>>>>>>>>>> StreamTask=DEBUG >>>>>>>>>>>>> log4j.logger.com.rovio.ds.flink.uniqueid. >>>>>>>>>>>>> DistinctFunction=DEBUG >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then I ran the following kind of test: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Cancelled the on-going job with savepoint created at ~Sep 18 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 08:35 UTC 2018 >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Started a new cluster & job with DEBUG enabled at ~09:13, >>>>>>>>>>>>> restored from that previous cluster's savepoint >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Ran until caught up offsets >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Cancelled the job with a new savepoint >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Started a new job _without_ DEBUG, which restored the new >>>>>>>>>>>>> savepoint, let it keep running so that it will eventually write >>>>>>>>>>>>> the output >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then on the next day, after results had been flushed when the >>>>>>>>>>>>> 24-hour window closed, I compared the results again with a batch >>>>>>>>>>>>> version's >>>>>>>>>>>>> output. And found some missing ids as usual. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I drilled down to one specific missing id (I'm replacing the >>>>>>>>>>>>> actual value with AN12345 below), which was not found in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> stream output, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but was found in batch output & flink DEBUG logs. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Related to that id, I gathered the following information: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-09-18~09:13:21,000 job started & savepoint is restored >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-09-18 09:14:29,085 missing id is processed for the first >>>>>>>>>>>>> time, proved by this log line: >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-09-18 09:14:29,085 DEBUG >>>>>>>>>>>>> com.rovio.ds.flink.uniqueid.DistinctFunction >>>>>>>>>>>>> - DistinctFunction.reduce returns: s.aid1=AN12345 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-09-18 09:15:14,264 first synchronous part of checkpoint >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-09-18 09:15:16,544 first asynchronous part of checkpoint >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ( >>>>>>>>>>>>> more occurrences of checkpoints (~1 min checkpointing time + >>>>>>>>>>>>> ~1 min delay before next) >>>>>>>>>>>>> / >>>>>>>>>>>>> more occurrences of DistinctFunction.reduce >>>>>>>>>>>>> ) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-09-18 09:23:45,053 missing id is processed for the last >>>>>>>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-09-18~10:20:00,000 savepoint created & job cancelled >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To be noted, there was high backpressure after restoring from >>>>>>>>>>>>> savepoint until the stream caught up with the kafka offsets. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Although, our >>>>>>>>>>>>> job uses assign timestamps & watermarks on the flink kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer itself, >>>>>>>>>>>>> so event time of all partitions is synchronized. As expected, we >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't get >>>>>>>>>>>>> any late data in the late data side output. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> From this we can see that the missing ids are processed by the >>>>>>>>>>>>> reducer, but they must get lost somewhere before the 24-hour >>>>>>>>>>>>> window is >>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it's worth mentioning once more that the stream >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't miss any ids if we let it's running without interruptions >>>>>>>>>>>>> / state >>>>>>>>>>>>> restoring. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What's next? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 3:49 PM Andrey Zagrebin < >>>>>>>>>>>>> and...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juho, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > only when the 24-hour window triggers, BucketingSink gets a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> burst of input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is of course totally true, my understanding is the same. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot exclude problem there for sure, just savepoints are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> used a lot >>>>>>>>>>>>>> w/o problem reports and BucketingSink is known to be problematic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with s3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why, I asked you: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > You also wrote that the timestamps of lost event are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'probably' around the time of the savepoint, if it is not yet >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for sure I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would also check it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Although, bucketing sink might loose any data at the end of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the day (also from the middle). The fact, that it is always >>>>>>>>>>>>>> around the time >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of taking a savepoint and not random, is surely suspicious and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible >>>>>>>>>>>>>> savepoint failures need to be investigated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the s3 problem, s3 doc says: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The caveat is that if you make a HEAD or GET request to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> key name (to find if the object exists) before creating the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> object, Amazon >>>>>>>>>>>>>> S3 provides 'eventual consistency' for read-after-write. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The algorithm you suggest is how it is roughly implemented >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now (BucketingSink.openNewPartFile). My understanding is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that 'eventual consistency’ means that even if you just created >>>>>>>>>>>>>> file (its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> name is key) it can be that you do not get it in the list or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists (HEAD) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns false and you risk to rewrite the previous part. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The BucketingSink was designed for a standard file system. s3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is used over a file system wrapper atm but does not always >>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> file system guarantees. See also last example in [1]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://codeburst.io/quick-explanation-of-the-s3- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency-model-6c9f325e3f82 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 29 Aug 2018, at 12:11, Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey, thank you very much for the debugging suggestions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll try them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meanwhile two more questions, please: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Just to keep in mind this problem with s3 and exclude it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for sure. I would also check whether the size of missing events >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is around >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the batch size of BucketingSink or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fair enough, but I also want to focus on debugging the most >>>>>>>>>>>>>> probable subject first. So what do you think about this – true >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or false: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only when the 24-hour window triggers, BucketinSink gets a burst >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Around the state restoring point (middle of the day) it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, so it can't lose anything either. Isn't this true, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have I totally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed how Flink works in triggering window results? I would not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there to be any optimization that speculatively triggers early >>>>>>>>>>>>>> results of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> regular time window to the downstream operators. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The old BucketingSink has in general problem with s3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internally BucketingSink queries s3 as a file system to list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>>>>>>> written file parts (batches) and determine index of the next >>>>>>>>>>>>>> part to start. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to eventual consistency of checking file existence in s3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1], the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BucketingSink can rewrite the previously written part and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically loose >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was wondering, what does S3's "read-after-write >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency" (mentioned on the page you linked) actually mean. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this might be possible: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - LIST keys, find current max index >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - choose next index = max + 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - HEAD next index: if it exists, keep adding + 1 until key >>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't exist on S3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But definitely sounds easier if a sink keeps track of files >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a way that's guaranteed to be consistent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Juho >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 2:04 PM Andrey Zagrebin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, StreamingFileSink does not support s3 in 1.6.0, it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planned for the next 1.7 release, sorry for confusion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The old BucketingSink has in general problem with s3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Internally BucketingSink queries s3 as a file system >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to list already written file parts (batches) and determine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index of the next part to start. Due to eventual consistency of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> checking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file existence in s3 [1], the BucketingSink can rewrite the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written part and basically loose it. It should be fixed for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StreamingFileSink in 1.7 where Flink keeps its own track of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written parts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and does not rely on s3 as a file system. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also include Kostas, he might add more details. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just to keep in mind this problem with s3 and exclude it for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure I would also check whether the size of missing events is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch size of BucketingSink or not. You also wrote that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timestamps of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lost event are 'probably' around the time of the savepoint, if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet for sure I would also check it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you already checked the log files of job manager and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> task managers for the job running before and after the restore >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check point? Is everything successful there, no errors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant warnings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or exceptions? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As the next step, I would suggest to log all encountered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events in DistinctFunction.reduce if possible for production >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data and check >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether the missed events are eventually processed before or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> savepoint. The following log message indicates a border between >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the events >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that should be included into the savepoint (logged before) or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “{} ({}, synchronous part) in thread {} took {} ms” >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (template) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also check if the savepoint has been overall completed: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "{} ({}, asynchronous part) in thread {} took {} ms." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Introduction.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2018, at 20:41, Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using StreamingFileSink is not a convenient option for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production use for us as it doesn't support s3*. I could use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StreamingFileSink just to verify, but I don't see much point in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing so. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider my previous comment: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I realized that BucketingSink must not play any role in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this problem. This is because only when the 24-hour window >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BucketingSink gets a burst of input. Around the state restoring >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (middle of the day) it doesn't get any input, so it can't lose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either (right?). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I could also use a kafka sink instead, but I can't imagine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how there could be any difference. It's very real that the sink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any input for a long time until the 24-hour window closes, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quickly writes out everything because it's not that much data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eventually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the distinct values. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any ideas for debugging what's happening around the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> savepoint & restoration time? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *) I actually implemented StreamingFileSink as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative sink. This was before I came to realize that most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink component has nothing to do with the data loss problem. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with s3n:// path just to see an exception being thrown. In the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I indeed then found an explicit check for the target path >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "hdfs://". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 7:49 PM Andrey Zagrebin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I think before further debugging the window reduced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could you try the new ‘StreamingFileSink’ [1] introduced in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flink 1.6.0 instead of the previous 'BucketingSink’? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://ci.apache.org/projects/flink/flink-docs- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stable/dev/connectors/streamfile_sink.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2018, at 18:03, Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, sorry for my confusing comment. I just meant that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems like there's a bug somewhere now that the output is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missing some data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I would wait and check the actual output in s3 because it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the main result of the job >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and that's what I have already done. There seems to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always some data loss with the production data volumes, if the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> job has been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restarted on that day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you have any suggestions for how to debug this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many thanks for stepping in. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 6:37 PM Andrey Zagrebin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juho, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So it is a per key deduplication job. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I would wait and check the actual output in s3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it is the main result of the job and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The late data around the time of taking savepoint might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be not included into the savepoint but it should be behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the snapshotted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset in Kafka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not a bug, it is a possible behaviour. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The savepoint is a snapshot of the data in transient which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is already consumed from Kafka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basically the full contents of the window result is split >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the savepoint and what can come after the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> savepoint'ed offset in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kafka but before the window result is written into s3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allowed lateness should not affect it, I am just saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the final result in s3 should include all records after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what should be guaranteed but not the contents of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the intermediate savepoint. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2018, at 16:52, Juho Autio <juho.au...@rovio.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your answer! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I check for the missed data from the final output on s3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I wait until the next day, then run the same thing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-implemented in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> batch, and compare the output. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > The late data around the time of taking savepoint might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be not included into the savepoint but it should be behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the snapshotted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset in Kafka. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I would definitely expect that. It seems like there's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bug somewhere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Then it should just come later after the restore and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be reduced within the allowed lateness into the final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is saved into s3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, as far as I know, allowed lateness doesn't play any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> role here, because I started running the job with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowedLateness=0, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still get the data loss, while my late data output doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> receive anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Also, is this `DistinctFunction.reduce` just an example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the actual implementation, basically saving just one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 24h window in s3? then what is missing there? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's the actual implementation. Note that there's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keyBy before the DistinctFunction. So there's one record for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each key >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (which is the combination of a couple of fields). In practice >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we're missing ~2000-4000 elements on each restore, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output is obviously much more than that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the full code for the key selector: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public class MapKeySelector implements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KeySelector<Map<String,String>, Object> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private final String[] fields; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public MapKeySelector(String... fields) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this.fields = fields; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public Object getKey(Map<String, String> event) throws >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exception { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tuple key = Tuple.getTupleClass(fields. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> length).newInstance(); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for (int i = 0; i < fields.length; i++) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key.setField(event.getOrDefault(fields[i], >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ""), i); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return key; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And a more exact example on how it's used: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .keyBy(new MapKeySelector("ID", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "PLAYER_ID", "FIELD", "KEY_NAME", "KEY_VALUE")) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .timeWindow(Time.days(1)) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .reduce(new DistinctFunction()) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 5:26 PM Andrey Zagrebin < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and...@data-artisans.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Juho, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where exactly does the data miss? When do you notice >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you check it: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - debugging `DistinctFunction.reduce` right after resume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the middle of the day >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - some distinct records miss in the final output >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of BucketingSink in s3 after window result is actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered and saved >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into s3 at the end of the day? is this the main output? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The late data around the time of taking savepoint might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be not included into the savepoint but it should be behind >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the snapshotted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offset in Kafka. Then it should just come later after the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restore and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be reduced within the allowed lateness into the final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is saved into s3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, is this `DistinctFunction.reduce` just an example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or the actual implementation, basically saving just one of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> records inside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 24h window in s3? then what is missing there? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Aug 2018, at 15:42, Juho Autio < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> juho.au...@rovio.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I changed to allowedLateness=0, no change, still missing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data when restoring from savepoint. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:43 AM Juho Autio < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> juho.au...@rovio.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I realized that BucketingSink must not play any role in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this problem. This is because only when the 24-hour window >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BucketinSink gets a burst of input. Around the state >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restoring point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (middle of the day) it doesn't get any input, so it can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lose anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either (right?). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will next try removing the allowedLateness entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the equation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the meanwhile, please let me know if you have any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions for debugging the lost data, for example what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logs to enable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We use FlinkKafkaConsumer010 btw. Are there any known >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues with that, that could contribute to lost data when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restoring a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> savepoint? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 4:23 PM Juho Autio < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> juho.au...@rovio.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some data is silently lost on my Flink stream job when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state is restored from a savepoint. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any debugging hints to find out where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exactly the data gets dropped? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My job gathers distinct values using a 24-hour window. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't have any custom state management. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I cancel the job with savepoint and restore from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that savepoint, some data is missed. It seems to be losing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a small >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount of data. The event time of lost data is probably >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around the time of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> savepoint. In other words the rest of the time window is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> missed – collection works correctly also for (most of the) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> events that come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in after restoring. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the job processes a full 24-hour window without >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interruptions it doesn't miss anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Usually the problem doesn't happen in test environments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that have smaller parallelism and smaller data volumes. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But in production >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> volumes the job seems to be consistently missing at least >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every restore. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This issue has consistently happened since the job was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially created. It was at first run on an older version >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Flink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.5-SNAPSHOT and it still happens on both Flink 1.5.2 & >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1.6.0. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm wondering if this could be for example some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> synchronization issue between the kafka consumer offsets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vs. what's been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> written by BucketingSink? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Job content, simplified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kafkaStream >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .flatMap(new ExtractFieldsFunction()) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .keyBy(new MapKeySelector(1, 2, 3, 4)) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .timeWindow(Time.days(1)) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .allowedLateness(allowedLateness) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .sideOutputLateData(lateDataTag) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .reduce(new DistinctFunction()) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .addSink(sink) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // use a fixed number of output >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setParallelism(8)) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /** >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Usage: .keyBy("the", "distinct", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fields").reduce(new DistinctFunction()) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> */ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public class DistinctFunction implements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ReduceFunction<java.util.Map<String, String>> { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public Map<String, String> reduce(Map<String, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String> value1, Map<String, String> value2) { >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return value1; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. State configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> boolean enableIncrementalCheckpointing = true; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String statePath = "s3n://bucket/savepoints"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new RocksDBStateBackend(statePath, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enableIncrementalCheckpointing); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Checkpointing Mode Exactly Once >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interval 1m 0s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout 10m 0s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Minimum Pause Between Checkpoints 1m 0s >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maximum Concurrent Checkpoints 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Persist Checkpoints Externally Enabled (retain on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancellation) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. BucketingSink configuration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We use BucketingSink, I don't think there's anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> special here, if not the fact that we're writing to S3. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> String outputPath = "s3://bucket/output"; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BucketingSink<Map<String, String>> sink = new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BucketingSink<Map<String, String>>(outputPath) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setBucketer(new ProcessdateBucketer()) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setBatchSize(batchSize) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setInactiveBucketThreshold( >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inactiveBucketThreshold) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .setInactiveBucketCheckInterval >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (inactiveBucketCheckInterval); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sink.setWriter(new IdJsonWriter()); >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Kafka & event time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My flink job reads the data from Kafka, using a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BoundedOutOfOrdernessTimestampExtractor on the kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer to synchronize watermarks accross all kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> partitions. We also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write late data to side output, but nothing is written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there – if it would, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it could explain missed data in the main output (I'm also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sure that our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> late data writing works, because we previously had some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual late data >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which ended up there). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. allowedLateness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may be or may not be relevant that I have also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled allowedLateness with 1 minute lateness on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 24-hour window: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that makes sense, I could try removing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowedLateness entirely? That would be just to rule out >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Flink doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a bug that's related to restoring state in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combination with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowedLateness feature. After all, all of our data should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be in a good >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enough order to not be late, given the max out of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orderness used on kafka >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer timestamp extractor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you in advance! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- *Juho Autio* Senior Data Engineer Data Engineering, Games Rovio Entertainment Corporation Mobile: + 358 (0)45 313 0122 juho.au...@rovio.com www.rovio.com *This message and its attachments may contain confidential information and is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient and / or you have received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete all material you have received in this message. You are hereby notified that any use of the information, which you have received in error in whatsoever form, is strictly prohibited. Thank you for your co-operation.*
