Initially it started in the testing. QA reported problems where "events" were
not detected after they finished their testing. After this discussion, my
proposal was to send a few more records to cause the windows to flush so that
the suppressed event would show up. Now it looks to me, these few dummy records
have to match the "key" of the pending windows. Then it would be flushed.
In practice, it may not be a problem always. But then the real time nature of
the problem might require us that there is not a huge delay between the
processing of the event and the flush. How does one solve this issue in
production ? I am wondering why the design did not accommodate a timer to flush
the windows ?
Thanks
Mohan
On 6/26/19, 8:18 AM, "John Roesler" <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
Hi Mohan,
I see where you're going with this, and it might indeed be a
challenge. Even if you send a "dummy" message on all input topics, you
won't have a guarantee that after the repartition, the dummy message
is propagated to all partitions of the repartition topics. So it might
be difficult to force the suppression buffer to flush if it's after a
repartition.
Can we take a step back and discuss the motivation for forcing the
records to flush out? Is this for testing your app, or is it to drive
some production logic?
Thanks,
-John
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 7:26 PM Parthasarathy, Mohan <mpart...@hpe.com>
wrote:
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for the nice explanation. When the repartitioning happens, does
the window get associated with the new partition i.e., now does a message with
new timestamp has to appear on the repartition topic for the window to expire ?
It is possible that there is new stream of messages coming in but post-map
operation, the partitions in the repartitioned topic does not see the same
thing.
>
> Thanks
> Mohan
>
> On 6/24/19, 7:49 AM, "John Roesler" <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
>
> Hey, this is a very apt question.
>
> GroupByKey isn't a great example because it doesn't actually change
> the key, so all the aggregation results are actually on records from
> the same partition. But let's say you do a groupBy or a map (or any
> operation that can change the key), followed by an aggregation. Now
> it's possible that the aggregation would need to process records from
> two different partitions. In such a case (key-changing operation
> followed by a stateful operation), Streams actually round-trips the
> data through an intermediate topic, called a repartition topic, before
> the aggregation. This has the effect, similar to the "shuffle" phase
> of map-reduce, of putting all the data into its *new* right partition,
> so then the aggregation can still process each of its partitions
> independently.
>
> Regarding the latter statement, even though you only have one
> instance, Streams _still_ processes each partition independently. The
> "unit of work" responsible for processing a partition is called a
> "task". So if you have 4 partitions, then your one instance actually
> has 4 state stores, one for each task, where each task only gets
> records from a single partition. The tasks can't see anything about
> each other, not their state nor other metadata like their current
> stream time. Otherwise, the results would depend on which tasks happen
> to be co-located with which other tasks. So, having to send your
> "purge" event to all partitions is a pain, but in the end, it buys you
> a lot, as you can add another instance to your cluster at any time,
> and Streams will scale up, and you'll know that the program is
> executing exactly the same way the whole time.
>
> -John
>
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 4:37 PM Parthasarathy, Mohan
<mpart...@hpe.com> wrote:
> >
> > I can see the issue. But it raised other questions. Pardon my
ignorance. Even though partitions are processed independently, windows can be
aggregating state from records read from many partitions. Let us say there is a
groupByKey followed by aggregate. In this case how is the state reconciled
across all the application instances ? Is there a designated instance for a
particular key ?
> >
> > In my case, there was only one instance processing records from all
partitions and it is kind of odd that windows did not expire even though I
understand why now.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Mohan
> >
> >
> > On 6/21/19, 2:25 PM, "John Roesler" <j...@confluent.io> wrote:
> >
> > No problem. It's definitely a subtlety. It occurs because each
> > partition is processed completely independently of the others,
so
> > "stream time" is tracked per partition, and there's no way to
look
> > across at the other partitions to find out what stream time
they have.
> >
> > In general, it's not a problem because you'd expect all
partitions to
> > receive updates over time, but if you're specifically trying to
send
> > events that cause stuff to get flushed from the buffers, it can
mess
> > with you. It's especially notable in tests. So, for most tests,
I just
> > configure the topics to have one partition.
> >
> > -John
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:56 PM Parthasarathy, Mohan
<mpart...@hpe.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > That change "In the same partition" must explain what we are
seeing. Unless you see one message per partition, all windows will not expire.
That is an interesting twist. Thanks for the correction ( I will go back and
confirm this.
> > >
> > > -mohan
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/21/19, 12:40 PM, "John Roesler" <j...@confluent.io>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Sure, the record cache attempts to save downstream
operators from
> > > unnecessary updates by also buffering for a short amount
of time
> > > before forwarding. It forwards results whenever the cache
fills up or
> > > whenever there is a commit. If you're happy to wait at
least "commit
> > > interval" amount of time for updates, then you don't need
to do
> > > anything, but if you're on the edge of your seat, waiting
for these
> > > results, you can set cache.max.bytes.buffering to 0 to
disable the
> > > record cache entirely. Note that this would hurt
throughput in
> > > general, though.
> > >
> > > Just a slight modification:
> > > * a new record with new timestamp > (all the previous
timestamps +
> > > grace period) will cause all the old windows *in the same
partition*
> > > to close
> > > * yes, expiry of the window depends only on the event time
> > >
> > > Hope this helps!
> > > -John
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:42 AM Parthasarathy, Mohan
<mpart...@hpe.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Could you tell me a little more about the delays about
the record caches and how I can disable it ?
> > > >
> > > > If I could summarize my problem:
> > > >
> > > > -A new record with a new timestamp > all records sent
before, I expect *all* of the old windows to close
> > > > -Expiry of the windows depends only on the event time
and not on the key
> > > >
> > > > Are these two statements correct ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Mohan
> > > >
> > > > On 6/20/19, 9:17 AM, "John Roesler" <j...@confluent.io>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > In addition to setting the grace period to zero (or
some small
> > > > number), you should also consider the delays
introduced by record
> > > > caches upstream of the suppression. If you're
closely watching the
> > > > timing of records going into and coming out of the
topology, this
> > > > might also spoil your expectations. You could
always disable the
> > > > record cache to make the system more predictable
(although this would
> > > > hurt throughput in production).
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -John
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 3:01 PM Parthasarathy,
Mohan <mpart...@hpe.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We do explicitly set the grace period to zero. I
am going to try the new version
> > > > >
> > > > > -mohan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/19/19, 12:50 PM, "Parthasarathy, Mohan"
<mpart...@hpe.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks. We will give it a shot.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 6/19/19, 12:42 PM, "Bruno Cadonna"
<br...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Mohan,
> > > > >
> > > > > I realized that my previous statement was
not clear. With a grace
> > > > > period of 12 hour, suppress would wait
for late events until stream
> > > > > time has advanced 12 hours before a
result would be emitted.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Bruno
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 9:21 PM Bruno
Cadonna <br...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mohan,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if you do not set a grace period, the
grace period defaults to 12
> > > > > > hours. Hence, suppress would wait for
an event that occurs 12 hour
> > > > > > later before it outputs a result. Try
to explicitly set the grace
> > > > > > period to 0 and let us know if it
worked.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it still does not work, upgrade to
version 2.2.1 if it is possible
> > > > > > for you. We had a couple of bugs in
suppress recently that are fixed
> > > > > > in that version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:37 PM
Parthasarathy, Mohan <mpart...@hpe.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, I have not set any grace period.
Is that mandatory ? Have you seen problems with suppress and windows expiring ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Mohan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 6/19/19, 12:41 AM, "Bruno Cadonna"
<br...@confluent.io> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Mohan,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did you set a grace period on the
window?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Bruno
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:04 AM
Parthasarathy, Mohan <mpart...@hpe.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On further debugging, what we
are seeing is that windows are expiring rather randomly as new messages are
being processed. . We tested with new key for every new message. We waited for
the window time before replaying new messages. Sometimes a new message would
come in and create state. It takes several messages to make some of the old
windows to be closed (go past suppress to the next stage). We have also seen
where one of them never closed even but several other older ones expired. Then
we explicitly sent a message with the same old key and then it showed up. Also,
for every new message, only one of the previous window expires even though
there are several pending.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If we don't use suppress, then
there is never an issue. With suppress, the behavior we are seeing is weird. We
are using 2.1.0 version in DSL mode. Any clues on what we could be missing ?
Why isn't there an order in the way windows are closed ? As event time
progresses by the new messages arriving, the older ones should expire. Is that
right understanding or not ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Mohan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 6/17/19, 3:43 PM,
"Parthasarathy, Mohan" <mpart...@hpe.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We are using suppress in
the application. We see some state being created at some point in time. Now
there is no new data for a day or two. We send new data but the old window of
data (where we see the state being created) is not closing i.e not seeing it go
through suppress and on to the next stage. It is as though the state created
earlier was purged. Is this possible ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Mohan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
