I'm still quite new to the world of stream and batch processing and trying to understnad concepts and speach. It is admitedly very possible that the answer to my question well known, easy to find or even answered a hundred times here at SO, but I was not able to find it.
The background:
I am working in a big scientific project (nuclear fusion research), and we are producing tons of measurement data during experiment runs. Those data are mostly streams of samples tagged with a nanosecond timestamp, where samples can be anything from a single by ADC value, via an array of such, via deeply structured data (with up to hundreds of entries from 1 bit booleans to 64bit double precision floats) to raw HD video frames or even string text messages. If I understand the common terminologies right, I would regard our data as "tabular data", for the most part.
We are working with mostly selfmade software solutions from data acquisition over simple online (streaming) analysis (like scaling, subsampling and such) to our own data sotrage, management and access facilities.
In view of the scale of the operation and the effort for maintaining all those implementations, we are investigating the possibilities to use standard frameworks and tools for more of our tasks.
My question:
In particular at this stage, we are facing the need for more and more sofisticated (automated and manual) data analytics on live/online/realtime data as well as "after the fact" offline/batch analytics of "historic" data. In this endavor, I am trying to understand if and how existing analytics frameworks like Spark, Flink, Storm etc. (possibly supported by message queues like Kafka, Pulsar,...) can support a scenario, where
data is flowing/streamed into the platform/framework, attached an identifier like a URL or an ID or such
the platform interacts with integrated or external storage to persist the streaming data (for years), associated with the identifier
analytics processes can now transparently query/analyse data addressed by an identifier and an arbitrary (open or closed) time window, and the framework suplies data batches/samples for the analysis either from backend storage or coming in live from data acquisition
Simply streaming the online data into storage and querying from there seems no option as we need both raw and analysed data for live monitoring and realtime feedback control of the experiment.
Also, letting the user query either a live input signal or a historic batch from storage differently would not be ideal, as our physicists mostly are no data scientists and we would like to keep such "technicalities" away from them and idealy the exact same algorithms should be used for analysing new real time data and old stored data from previous experiments.
Sitenotes:
we are talking about peek data loads in the range of 10th of gigabits per second coming in bursts of increasing length of seconds up to minutes - could this be handled by the candidates?
we are using timestamps in nanosecond resolution, even thinking about pico - this poses some limitations on the list of possible candidates if I unserstand correctly?
I would be very greatfull if anyone would be able to understand my question and to shed some light on the topic for me :-)
Many Thanks and kind regards,
Beppo
I don't think anyone can say "yes, framework X can definitely handle your workload", because it depends a lot on what you need out of your message processing, e.g. regarding messaging reliability, and how your data streams can be partitioned.
You may be interested in BenchmarkingDistributedStreamProcessingEngines. The paper is using versions of Storm/Flink/Spark that are a few years old (looks like they were released in 2016), but maybe the authors would be willing to let you use their benchmark to evaluate newer versions of the three frameworks?
A very common setup for streaming analytics is to go data source -> Kafka/Pulsar -> analytics framework -> long term data store. This decouples processing from data ingest, and lets you do stuff like reprocessing historical data as if it were new.
I think the first step for you should be to see if you can get the data volume you need through Kafka/Pulsar. Either generate a test set manually, or grab some data you think could be representative from your production environment, and see if you can put it through Kafka/Pulsar at the throughput/latency you need.
Remember to consider partitioning of your data. If some of your data streams could be processed independently (i.e. ordering doesn't matter), you should not be putting them in the same partitions. For example, there is probably no reason to mix sensor measurements and the video feed streams. If you can separate your data into independent streams, you are less likely to run into bottlenecks both in Kafka/Pulsar and the analytics framework. Separate data streams would also allow you to parallelize processing in the analytics framework much better, as you could run e.g. video feed and sensor processing on different machines.
Once you know whether you can get enough throughput through Kafka/Pulsar, you should write a small example for each of the 3 frameworks. To start, I would just receive and drop the data from Kafka/Pulsar, which should let you know early whether there's a bottleneck in the Kafka/Pulsar -> analytics path. After that, you can extend the example to do something interesting with the example data, e.g. do a bit of processing like what you might want to do in production.
You also need to consider which kinds of processing guarantees you need for your data streams. Generally you will pay a performance penalty for guaranteeing at-least-once or exactly-once processing. For some types of data (e.g. the video feed), it might be okay to occasionally lose messages. Once you decide on a needed guarantee, you can configure the analytics frameworks appropriately (e.g. disable acking in Storm), and try benchmarking on your test data.
Just to answer some of your questions more explicitly:
The live data analysis/monitoring use case sounds like it fits the Storm/Flink systems fairly well. Hooking it up to Kafka/Pulsar directly, and then doing whatever analytics you need sounds like it could work for you.
Reprocessing of historical data is going to depend on what kind of queries you need to do. If you simply need a time interval + id, you can likely do that with Kafka plus a filter or appropriate partitioning. Kafka lets you start processing at a specific timestamp, and if you data is partitioned by id or you filter it as the first step in your analytics, you could start at the provided timestamp and stop processing when you hit a message outside the time window. This only applies if the timestamp you're interested in is when the message was added to Kafka though. I also don't believe Kafka supports below-millisecond resolution on the timestamps it generates.
If you need to do more advanced queries (e.g. you need to look at timestamps generated by your sensors), you could look at using Cassandra or Elasticsearch or Solr as your permanent data store. You will also want to investigate how to get the data from those systems back into your analytics system. For example, I believe Spark ships with a connector for reading from Elasticsearch, while Elasticsearch provides a connector for Storm. You should check whether such a connector exists for your data store/analytics system combination, or be willing to write your own.
Edit: Elaborating to answer your comment.
I was not aware that Kafka or Pulsar supported timestamps specified by the user, but sure enough, they both do. I don't see that Pulsar supports sub-millisecond timestamps though?
The idea you describe can definitely be supported by Kafka.
What you need is the ability to start a Kafka/Pulsar client at a specific timestamp, and read forward. Pulsar doesn't seem to support this yet, but Kafka does.
You need to guarantee that when you write data into a partition, they arrive in order of timestamp. This means that you are not allowed to e.g. write first message 1 with timestamp 10, and then message 2 with timestamp 5.
If you can make sure you write messages in order to Kafka, the example you describe will work. Then you can say "Start at timestamp 'last night at midnight'", and Kafka will start there. As live data comes in, it will receive it and add it to the end of its log. When the consumer/analytics framework has read all the data from last midnight to current time, it will start waiting for new (live) data to arrive, and process it as it comes in. You can then write custom code in your analytics framework to make sure it stops processing when it reaches the first message with timestamp 'tomorrow night'.
With regard to support of sub-millisecond timestamps, I don't think Kafka or Pulsar will support it out of the box, but you can work around it reasonably easily. Just put the sub-millisecond timestamp in the message as a custom field. When you want to start at e.g. timestamp 9ms 10ns, you ask Kafka to start at 9ms, and use a filter in the analytics framework to drop all messages between 9ms and 9ms 10ns.
Allow me to add the following suggestions on how Apache Pulsar might help address some of your requirements. Food for thought as it were.
"data is flowing/streamed into the platform/framework, attached an identifier like a URL or an ID or such"
You might want to look at Pulsar Functions, which allows you to write simple functions (In Java or Python) that gets executed on each individual message that is published to a topic. They are ideal for this type of data augmentation use case.
the platform interacts with integrated or external storage to persist the streaming data (for years), associated with the identifier
Pulsar has recently added tiered-storage, that allows you to retain event streams in S3, Azure Blob Store, or Google Cloud storage. This would allow you to keep the data for years in a cheap and reliable data store
analytics processes can now transparently query/analyse data addressed by an identifier and an arbitrary (open or closed) time window, and the framework suplies data batches/samples for the analysis either from backend storage or coming in live from data acquisition
Apache Pulsar has also added integration with the Presto query engine, which would allow you to query the data over a given time period (including data from tiered-storage) and place it into a topic for processing.
Related
Is it possible to output aggregation data on every trigger, before the aggregation time window is over?
Context: I'm developing an application that reads data from a Kafka topic, processes the data, aggregates it over a 1-hour window, and outputs to S3. However, The spark application understandably outputs the aggregation data to S3 only at the end of a given hour window.
The problem is that the end-users of the aggregated data in S3 can only have a semi real-time view, since they are always one hour late, waiting for the next aggregation to be outputted from the spark application.
Reducing the aggregation time window to something smaller than an hour would certainly help, but would generate a lot more data.
What could be done to enable real-time aggregation, as I call it, using minimal resources?
This is an interesting one and I do have a proposal but I'm not sure if this would really fit your minimal criteria. I'll describe the solution anyway...
If the end goal is to enable users to query data in real-time (or faster analytics in other words) then one way to achieve this is to introduce a database in your architecture that can handle fast inserts/updates - either a key-value store or a column oriented database. Below is a diagram that might help you in visualising this:
The idea is simple - just keep ingesting data into the first database and then keep offloading the data into S3 after a certain time i.e. either an hour or a day depending on your requirements. You could then register the metadata of both of these storage layers into a metadata layer (such as AWS Glue) - this may not always be necessary if you don't need a persistent metastore. On top of this, you could use something like Presto to query across both of these stores. This would also enable you to optimise your storage across these 2 data stores.
You'll obviously need to build the process to drop/delete the data partitions from the store you would be streaming in to and also to move data to S3.
This model is referred to as a tiered storage model or hierarchical storage model with sliding window pattern - Reference Article from Cloudera.
Hope this helps!
As you know, Kappa architecture is some kind of simplification of Lambda architecture. Kappa doesn't need batch layer, instead speed layer have to guarantee computation precision and enough throughput (more parallelism/resources) on historical data re-computation.
Still Kappa architecture requires two serving layers in case when you need to do analytic based on historical data. For example, data that have age < 2 weeks are stored at Redis (streaming serving layer), while all older data are stored somewhere at HBase (batch serving layer).
When (due to Kappa architecture) I have to insert data to batch serving layer?
If streaming layer inserts data immidiately to both batch & stream serving layers - than how about late data arrival? Or streaming layer should backup speed serving layer to batch serving layer on regular basis?
Example: let say source of data is Kafka, data are processed by Spark Structured Streaming or Flink, sinks are Redis and HBase. When write to Redis & HBase should happen?
If we perform stream processing, we want to make sure that output data is firstly made available as a data stream. In your example that means we write to Kafka as a primary sink.
Now you have two options:
have secondary jobs that reads from that Kafka topic and writes to Redis and HBase. That is the Kafka way, in that Kafka Streams does not support writing directly to any of these systems and you set up a Kafka connect job. These secondary jobs can then be tailored to the specific sinks, but they add additional operations overhead. (That's a bit of the backup option that you mentioned).
with Spark and Flink you also have the option to have secondary sinks directly in your job. You may add additional processing steps to transform the Kafka output into a more suitable form for the sink, but you are more limited when configuring the job. For example in Flink, you need to use the same checkpointing settings for the Kafka sink and the Redis/HBase sink. Nevertheless, if the settings work out, you just need to run one streaming job instead of 2 or 3.
Late events
Now the question is what to do with late data. The best solution is to let the framework handle that through watermarks. That is, data is only committed at all sinks, when the framework is sure that no late data arrives. If that doesn't work out because you really need to process late events even if they arrive much, much later and still want to have temporary results, you have to use update events.
Update events
(as requested by the OP, I will add more details to the update events)
In Kafka Streams, elements are emitted through a continuous refinement mechanism by default. That means, windowed aggregations emit results as soon as they have any valid data point and update that result while receiving new data. Thus, any late event is processed and yield an updated result. While this approach nicely lowers the burden to users, as they do not need to understand watermarks, it has some severe short-comings that led the Kafka Streams developers to add Suppression in 2.1 and onward.
The main issue is that it poses quite big challenges to downward users to process intermediate results as also explained in the article about Suppression. If it's not obvious if a result is temporary or "final" (in the sense that all expected events have been processed) then many applications are much harder to implement. In particular, windowing operations need to be replicated on consumer side to get the "final" value.
Another issue is that the data volume is blown up. If you'd have a strong aggregation factor, using watermark-based emission will reduce your data volume heavily after the first operation. However, continuous refinement will add a constant volume factor as each record triggers a new (intermediate) record for all intermediate steps.
Lastly, and particularly interesting for you is how to offload data to external systems if you have update events. Ideally, you would offload the data with some time lag continuously or periodically. That approach simulates the watermark-based emission again on consumer side.
Mixing the options
It's possible to use watermarks for the initial emission and then use update events for late events. The volume is then reduced for all "on-time" events. For example, Flink offers allowed lateness to make windows trigger again for late events.
This setup makes offloading data much easier as data only needs to be re-emitted to the external systems if a late event actually happened. The system should be tweaked that a late event is a rare case though.
We are collecting streaming data from device (Android , iOS). The data flow is , websocket -> logstash -> kafka -> spark -> cassandra. Ram is of 16 GB. Our app is based on OTT platform and when a video is streaming it will send events to kafka for analytics purpose. Current situation is, memory will be overflowed quickly while playing 4 or 5 videos in parallel.
What might be the issue? Is it any configuration mistake? Is there any other better approach for our requirement?
I'll answer your broad question with a broad answer.
Is Logstash / Kafka / Spark / Cassandra a 'correct' architecture?
There's nothing particularly wrong with that approach. It depends on what processing you're doing, and why you're landing it to Cassandra. You'll find plenty of people taking this approach, whilst others may use different stream processing e.g. Kafka Streams, as well as not always using a data store (since Apache Kafka persists data) - depends on what's consuming the data afterwards.
Can my system handle more than 10,000 user activities at a time with this architecture?
Yes. No. It depends, on way too many factors to give an answer. 10,000 users doing a simple activity with small volumes of data is hugely different from 10,000 users requiring complex processing on large volumes of data.
The only way to get an answer to this, and evaluate your architectural choice in general, is to analyse the behaviour of your system as you increase [simulated] user numbers. Do particular bottlenecks appear that indicate the requirement for greater hardware scale, or even different technology choices.
I have a requirement to process log file data. It is relatively trivial. I have 4 servers with 2 web applications running on each for a total of 8 log files. These get rotated on a regular basis. I'm writing data in the following format into these log files
Source Timestamp :9340398;39048039;930483;3940830
Where the numbers are identifiers in a data store. I want to set up a process to read these logs and for each id it will update a count depending on the number of times its id has been logged. It can either be real time or batch. My interface language to the datastore is Java. The process runs in production so needs to be robust but also needs to have a relatively simple architecture so it is maintainable. We also run zookeeper.
My initial thought was to do this in a batch whenever the log file is rotated running an Apache spark on each server. However I then got to looking at log agregators such as Apache Flume, Kafka and Storm, but this seems like overkill.
Given the multitude of choices has anyone got any good suggestions as to which tools to use to handle this problem based on experience?
8 log files don't seem to warrant any "big data" technology. If you do want a play/get started with these type of technology I'd recommend you'd start with Spark and/or Flink - both have relatively similar programming model both both can handle "business real-time" (Flink is better at streaming but both would seem to work in your case). Storm is relatively rigid (hard to change topologies) and has a more complex programming model
I need to process data from a set of streams, applying the same elaboration to each stream independently from the other streams.
I've already seen frameworks like storm, but it appears that it allows the processing of static streams only (i.e. tweets form twitter), while I need to process data from each user separately.
A simple example of what I mean could be a system where each user can track his gps location and see statistics like average velocity, acceleration, burnt calories and so on in real time. Of course, each user would have his own stream(s) and the system should process the stream of each user separately, as if each user had its own dedicated topology processing his data.
Is there a way to achieve this with a framework like storm, spark streaming or samza?
It would be even better if python is supported, since I already have a lot of code I'd like to reuse.
Thank you very much for your help
Using Storm, you can group data using fields-grouping connection pattern if you have a user-id in your tuples. This ensures, that data is partitioned by user-id and thus you get logical substreams. Your code only needs to be able to process multiple groups/substreams, because a single bolt instance gets multiple groups for processing. But Storm supports your use case for sure. It also can run Python code.
In Samza, similar to Storm, one would partition the individual streams on some user ID. This would guarantee that the same processor would see all the events for some particular user (as well as other user IDs that the partition function [a hash, for instance] assigns to that processor). Your description sounds like something that would more likely run on the client's system rather than being a server-side operation, however.
Non-JVM language support has been proposed for Samza, but not yet implemented.
You can use WSO2 Stream Processor to achieve this. You can partition the input stream by user-name and process events pertain to each user separately. The processing logic has to be written in Siddhi QL which is a SQL like language.
WSO2 SP also has a python wrapper to, it will allow you do perform administrative tasks such as submitting, editing jobs. But you can't write processing logic using python code.