kafka-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bello, Bob" <Bob.Be...@dish.com>
Subject RE: Cluster design distribution and JBOD vs RAID
Date Fri, 18 Apr 2014 19:01:27 GMT
Yes you would lose the topic/partitions on the drive. I'm not quite sure if Kafka can determine
what topics/partitions are missing or not. I suggest you try testing it.


- Bob


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Otto [mailto:aotto@wikimedia.org]
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 8:36 AM
To: users@kafka.apache.org
Subject: Re: Cluster design distribution and JBOD vs RAID

> BOB> We are using RAID10. It was a requirement from our Unix guys. The rationale for
this was we didn't want to lose just a disk and to have to rebuild/re-replicate 20TB of data.
We haven't experienced any drive failures that I am aware of. We have had complete server
failures, but the data was still good. I believe we have 10-4TB drives in a RAID10 configuration.
I/O performance is very good.

Just curious, would losing one disk in a JBOD setup really mean you'd have to
re-replicate 20TB of data?  If a single drive dies, wouldn't you only lose the partitions
that happen to be on that drive?




On Apr 17, 2014, at 8:00 PM, Bello, Bob <Bob.Bello@dish.com> wrote:

> Some feedback from your feedback.
>
> BERT> We have several uses cases we are looking at kafka for.  Today we are
> just using the file system to buffer data between our systems.  We are
> looking at uses cases that have varying message sizes of 200, 300, 1000,
> 2200 bytes
>
> BOB> Since you are using small message size, watch out or large index files. You can
stuff a lot of messages in to the default log file size of 512MB. We use 1GB log files before
rolling them.
>
>
> BERT>  The use case we are looking at currently has hourly peaks of about
> 450K messages per second.  For sizing we want to make sure we can support
> 900K .  Our larger feed in terms of size peaks at 450MBsec so we want to
> make sure the cluster we build can support 900MBsec
>
> BOB> I believe LinkedIn has reported getting a throughput of 900k messages though
a 6 node cluster. If you can achieve a flush rate of 100MB/s (which is easy for a good RAID
setup) having a 12 node cluster should be doable. Remember when your topic/partition leadership
is balance across the cluster (preferred replica election) you get to take advantage of all
the brokers. Don't forget to architect for a failures. Can your cluster handle max throughput
with two Kafka broker in an offline state?
>
> BERT>  Are you implying that the number of topics has direct correlation to
> the fail-over time?  I think I might test this by creating one topic
> loading 500 million rows and test failover and compare to 500 topics with 1
> million rows each.  Not sure if data in the Q impacts the failover so
> figured I would test that also.
>
> BOB> Yes, that is what we have seen. The current controller architecture takes longer
for Kafka nodes to fail over. It's not the # of topics, but the # of topic/partitions that
have to move over. When a Kafka broker fails (planed or unplanned), the producers and the
consumers have to pause for all the topic/partition pairs that were the leader for the off
line Kafka broker and they have to move to another Kafka broker that is in ISR. By having
lots of topics/partitions (we have many thousands), it can take a bit. Remember it's only
a chunk, not all topics and partitions. This of course can change as the Kafka development
team changes how this works. I highly recommend creating your topic and partition counts in
DEV/QA and test this out. You will see a difference.
>
> As for the amout of data in the topic/partition that is of no concern for failover. The
Kafka broker will only failover those topics/partitions that are in ISR. Replication time
once a Kafka broker is brought back online will depend on how far behind the Kafka broker
is from the leader. This is delta in the offset. Planned shutdowns can be minutes, unplanned
shutdowns/failures can take hours for our data to re-replicate.
>
>
> BERT>  Our default config config has a 256GB of memory also.  One thing I
> do want to test is impact on cluster of reading data not in memory.  Have
> you done any testing like this?
>
> BOB> Yes, it's about putting enough data to flush outside the OS file cache. But 512GB
of data in your topics to make sure the data is not in the cache. Also, you can reset and/or
use new consumer groups and make sure you read from the lowest-offset. Watch your iostats
to see if you get lots of reads. On a normal Kafka cluster that is reading cached memory (for
consumption), you will not see read IO. Assuming you don't have other processes on the system
reading data (such as log aggregation). We see 30MB writes/flushes ever-other-second with
1-2% IO utilization.
>
>
> BERT>  We have not determined what to use just yet for monitoring.  What
> are you guys using?
>
> BOB> We are using a commercial APM solution. It's an java agent the plugs into the
JVM on boot time. This reads the JMX information as well as file I/O rates, NIO rates and
GC. It sends to a centralized monitoring console. Google "Java APM" for some ideas.
>
>
> BERT>  Can you share more about your config?  Are you using RAID10 or
> RAID5?  What size and speed of drives?  Have you needed to do a RAID
> rebuild and if so did it negatively impact the cluster.   The standard
> server I was given has 12 x 4TB 7.2K drives.  I will either run in JBOD or
> as RAID10.  Parity based RAID with 4TB drives makes me nervous.  I am not
> worried about performance when things are working as designed...we need to
> plan for edge cases when consumer is reading old data or the system needs
> to play catch up on a big backlog.
>
> BOB> We are using RAID10. It was a requirement from our Unix guys. The rationale for
this was we didn't want to lose just a disk and to have to rebuild/re-replicate 20TB of data.
We haven't experienced any drive failures that I am aware of. We have had complete server
failures, but the data was still good. I believe we have 10-4TB drives in a RAID10 configuration.
I/O performance is very good.
>
> BERT>  Need to spend some time on zookeeper.   I have not looked at
> zookeeper performance to see if its negatively impacting the performance
> tests I am doing. We haven't  spent any time looking at zookeeper.  Did you
> find that the  SSD helped improve kafka performance?
>
> BOB> We started with SSD. Kafka brokers itself doesn't write a lot of data frequently
(to zookeeper). It's really about how your consumers flush their offsets. This is assuming
you will be using the high-level consumer client. If you are going to flush the offsets to
zookeeper on every message consumed (to get best effort nearly-exactly-once processing). You
will being writing a lot of data to zookeeper. On our 5 node zookeeper cluster, we are doing
300+ writes per second, and can spike up to many 1000's. Typically it's 1-2MBs data rate.
The SSDs are under 2% I/O utilization. 200MB of ZK data, and we clean up the files once per
hour. We run some consumers in batch and flush on time delay. Other consumers are flush per
message processed. It's the flush per message that causes the high-volume.
>
> Push back on DEVs and software architecture if they want to flush per message. Do it
where it's only absolutely necessary. :)
>
> The high level Kafka consumer is good at "at least once" processing. Exactly once is
a harder nut to crack. Exactly once processing may require some custom code around the low-level
Kafka consumer client.
>
> - Bob
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bertcord@gmail.com [mailto:bertcord@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bert Corderman
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:21 AM
> To: users@kafka.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Cluster design distribution and JBOD vs RAID
>
> Hey Bob,
>
> thanks for your detailed response.  I have added comments inline.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Bello, Bob <Bob.Bello@dish.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps as you consider the size of your cluster, a few questions about
>> the kind of messaging you are looking at? I can use an example of what we
>> do in our production environment while not going into specifics. These are
>> just observations from an OPS perspective. (sorry for the wall of text.)
>>
>> * Size of messages (<100 bytes, <1kB, <10kB, <100kB, <1MB, <10MB,
etc).
>> (we run messages size between a few byes to over 100KB with a few at over
>> 1MB).
>>
> BERT> We have several uses cases we are looking at kafka for.  Today we are
> just using the file system to buffer data between our systems.  We are
> looking at uses cases that have varying message sizes of 200, 300, 1000,
> 2200 bytes
>
>>
>> * Volume of messages per second (we produce over 15k per second and can
>> consume over 100K per second when we are processing though some lag)
>>
> BERT>  The use case we are looking at currently has hourly peaks of about
> 450K messages per second.  For sizing we want to make sure we can support
> 900K .  Our larger feed in terms of size peaks at 450MBsec so we want to
> make sure the cluster we build can support 900MBsec
>
>>
>> * # of Producer clients (a few, a lot) (we have over 300 app servers the
>> produce messages to the Kafka cluster)
>> ** Not only does this affect Kafka broker performance but it can use a lot
>> of TCP connections specially if you run a large Kafka cluster
>>
> BERT> our producer count will be low ...maybe 8-16 hosts.
>
>>
>> * # of Consumer clients (a few, a lot) (we have less than 50 app servers
>> that consume at this time)
>> ** This also affects the # of TCP connections to Kafka brokers. (We have
>> over 2400+ TCP connections to our cluster)
>>
> BERT>  This will be much higher but not sure yet.  We are also looking at
> replacing some legacy technology with storm so this is a bit up in the air
> right now.
>
>>
>> * Will you compress your message before sending them to Kafka? (we have a
>> mix of snappy, gzip and non-compressed messages depending on the
>> application). This can affect your disk usage
>>
> BERT> We will use whatever performs best ;)  My gut is that we will be
> using snappy
>
>>
>> * Planned retention period. Longer retention period = more storage
>> required. (we have varied retention periods per topic, between 10 days and
>> 30 days).
>>
>> * The number of topics per cluster. I believe Kafka scales well with the
>> number of topics, however you have to worry about a few things:
>> ** More topics, means slower migration/failover when Kafka brokers are
>> shutdown or fail. This has caused us time out issues. Planned shutdown of a
>> Kafka broker can take over 30 seconds to over 3 minutes. (We have over >10
>> and <50 topics. We are growing topics rapidly.)
>>
> BERT>  Are you implying that the number of topics has direct correlation to
> the fail-over time?  I think I might test this by creating one topic
> loading 500 million rows and test failover adn compare to 500 topics with 1
> million rows each.  Not sure if data in the Q impacts the failover so
> figured I would test that also.
>
>>
>> * The number of partitions per topic. More partitions per topic = more
>> open file handles, (2 per log file, one for data and one more the index).
>> We run average of 130 partitions. You have to consider your cardinality for
>> your messages if order is important. Can you use a key that allows a good
>> distribution across partitions while maintaining order? If all your message
>> end up in just a few partitions within the topic then it's harder scale the
>> consumption. This all depends on your use case.
>>
> BERT>  We are lucky that order is not critical for our large feeds.
>
>>
>> It might sound like good rationale to scale the # of partitions for a
>> topic to a huge number (for just in case). I think it all depends.
>>
>> * How many consumer threads can consume a single topic? You can't go wider
>> than the # of partitions however Kafka clients easily work with a large #
>> of partitions with a few consumer threads.
>>
>> * Producer vs. Consumer size. Is your messaging flow Producer or Consumer
>> heavy. Kafka is awesome and sending data to consumers that use "recent"
>> data. Since Kafka uses memory mapped files, any data from Kafka that is in
>> RAM will be very fast. (Our servers have 256GB of ram on them).
>>
> BERT>  Our default config config has a 256GB of memory also.  One thing I
> do want to test is impact on cluster of reading data not in memory.  Have
> you done any testing like this?
>
>>
>> * Size of your cluster vs. the # of replicas. Larger # of Kafka brokers
>> means more chance of failure within the cluster. Same kind of reason why
>> you generally won't see a large RAID5 array. You get one failure before you
>> lose data. If you decide to run a large cluster and # of replicas will be
>> important. How much risk are you willing to take? (We run a 6 node cluster
>> with a replica factor of 3. We can lose a total of two nodes before losing
>> data).
>>
> BERT>  Thanks for the datapoint.  We were also planning to go with
> replication factor of 3
>
>>
>> * Are you running on native iron or virtualized? VM is generally lower
>> performance but can generally spin up new instances faster upon failure. We
>> run on native iron so we get excellent performance at the cost of longer
>> lead times to provision new Kafka brokers.
>>
> BERT>  We are big fans of vms...however kafka will be on physical
>
>>
>> * Networking. Are you are running 100mbit, 1gig or 10gib? You can only
>> produce and consume so much data. Larger clusters let you run a total
>> aggregate bandwidth. Don't forget about replication! Topic/partition
>> leaders must replicate to all replica Kafkabrokers (hub/spoke). How long
>> can you wait for replication to occur after a planned or un-planned outage?
>> (We run >1Gig).
>>
> BERT> 10gb....so cheap now.  I did cost analysis and found that a single
> 10gb port costs about the same as 2 x 1gig.  Five times the bandwidth and
> less latency makes it no brainer.  If your kafka hosts have multiple nics
> make sure they are using the right port.  This one bit me for a little.
> (hostname config in the broker config)
>
>>
>> * Monitoring. Large # of Kafka brokers means more to monitor. Do you have
>> a centralized monitoring app? Kafka provides a lot (huge!) JMX information.
>> Making sense of it all can take some time.
>>
> BERT>  We have not determined what to use just yet for monitoring.  What
> are you guys using?
>
>
>> * Disk I/O. JBOD vs. RAID. How much are you willing to tolerate failures?
>> Do you have provisioned IO? (We run native iron and local disk in a RAID
>> configuration. It was easier for us to manage a single mount point than a
>> bunch in a JBOD configuration. We rely of local RAID and Kafka replication
>> to keep enough copies of our data. We have a large amount of disk capacity.
>> We can tolerate large re-replication events due to broker failure without
>> affecting producer or consumer performance.)
>>
> BERT>  Can you share more about your config?  Are you using RAID10 or
> RAID5?  What size and speed of drives?  Have you needed to do a RAID
> rebuild and if so did it negatively impact the cluster.   The standard
> server I was given has 12 x 4TB 7.2K drives.  I will either run in JBOD or
> as RAID10.  Parity based RAID with 4TB drives makes me nervous.  I am not
> worried about performance when things are working as designed...we need to
> plan for edge cases when consumer is reading old data or the system needs
> to play catch up on a big backlog.
>
>>
>> * Disk capacity / Kafka Broker capacity. Depending on your volume, message
>> size and retention period, how much disk space will you need? (Using our
>> "crystal ball tech(tm)" we decided over 20TB per Kafka broker would meet
>> our needs. We will probably add Kafka brokers over adding disk as we
>> outgrow this.)
>>
> BERT> I need a crystal ball ;)
>
>>
>> * Separate clusters to keep information separated? Do you have a use case
>> for keeping customer data separate? Compliance use cases such as PCI or
>> SOX? This may be a good reason to keep separate Kafka clusters. I assume
>> that you already will keep separate clusters for DEV/QA/PROD.
>>
> BERT>  yes DEV/QA/PROD completely separate
>
>>
>> * Zookeeper performance - 3 node, 5 node or 7 node. Less nodes, better
>> performance. More nodes, better failure tolerance. We run 5 nodes with the
>> transaction logs on SSD. Our ZK update performance is very good.
>>
> BERT>  Need to spend some time on zookeeper.   I have not looked at
> zookeeper performance to see if its negatively impacting the performance
> tests I am doing. We haven't  spent any time looking at zookeeper.  Did you
> find that the  SSD helped improve kafka performance?
>
>>
>> # of partitions per Topic debate:
>> Personally, I'm a proponent of larger # of partitions per topic without
>> going way large. You can add Kafka Brokers to increase capacity and get
>> more performance. However though it's possible to add partitions after a
>> topic is created, it can cause issues with your key hashing depending on
>> your message architecture.
>>
>> * Increasing # of brokers = easy
>> * Increasing the # of partitions in a topic with data in it = hard
>>
>> For us, we will be adding more topics and as we add additional messaging
>> functionality.
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> 130 partitions per topic / 6 brokers = 5 leader partitions per broker per
>> topic. If you replicate 3 the you will end up with 3x active partitions per
>> broker.
>>
>> 1024 partitions per topic / 24 brokers =~ 43 leader partitions per broker
>> per topic.
>>
> BERT> Thanks for the example.   Good to see others are using larger
> partition counts.
>
>>
>>
>> Final thoughts:
>>
>> There's no magical formula for this as already stated in the wiki. It is a
>> lot of trial and error. I will say that we went from a few 100 messages per
>> second volume to over 40k per second by adding one application and our
>> Kafka cluster didn't even blink.
>>
>> Kafka is awesome.
>>
>> Btw, we're running 0.8.0.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Bob
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bertcord@gmail.com [mailto:bertcord@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Bert
>> Corderman
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 11:58 AM
>> To: users@kafka.apache.org
>> Subject: Cluster design distribution and JBOD vs RAID
>>
>> I am wondering what others are doing in terms of cluster separation. (if at
>> all)  For example let's say I need 24 nodes to support a given workload.
>> What are the tradeoffs between a single 24 node cluster vs 2 x 12 node
>> clusters for example.  The application I support can support separation of
>> data fairly easily as the data is all processed in the same way but can be
>> sharded isolated based on customers.  I understand the standard tradeoffs,
>> for example putting all your eggs in one basket but curious as if there are
>> any details specific to Kafka in terms of cluster scale out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Somewhat related is the use of RAID vs JBOD, I have reviewed the documents
>> on the Kafka site and understand the tradeoff between space as well as
>> sequential IO vs random and the fact a RAID rebuild might kill the system.
>> I am specifically asking the question as it relates to larger cluster and
>> the impact on the number of partitions a topic might need.
>>
>>
>>
>> Take an example of a 24 node cluster with 12 drives each the cluster would
>> have 288 drives.  To ensure a topic is distributed across all drives a
>> topic would require 288 partitions.  I am planning to test some of this but
>> wanted to know if there was a rule of thumb.  The following link
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/FAQ#FAQ-HowdoIchoosethenumberofpartitionsforatopic
>> ?
>> Talks about supporting up to 10K partitions but its not clear if this is
>> for a cluster as a whole vs topic based
>>
>>
>> Those of you running larger clusters what are you doing?
>>
>>
>> Bert
>>


Mime
View raw message