kafka-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryanne Dolan <ryannedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Official Kafka Disaster Recovery is insufficient - Suggestions needed
Date Mon, 03 Sep 2018 18:26:20 GMT
Hanning,

In mission-critical (and indeed GDPR-related) applications, I've ETL'd
Kafka to a secondary store e.g. HDFS, and built tooling around recovering
state back into Kafka. I've had situations where data is accidentally or
incorrectly ingested into Kafka, causing downstream systems to process bad
data. This, in my experience, is astronomically more likely than the other
DR scenarios you describe. But my approach is the same:

- don't treat Kafka as a source-of-truth. It is hard to fix data in an
append-only log, so we can't trust it to always be correct.

- ETL Kafka topics to a read-only, append-only, indexable log e.g. in HDFS,
and then build tooling to reingest data from HDFS back into Kafka. That way
in the event of disaster, data can be recovered from cold storage. Don't
rely on unlimited retention in Kafka.

- build everything around log compaction, keys, and idempotency. People
think compaction is just to save space, but it is also the only way to
layer new records over existing records in an otherwise append-only
environment. I've built pipelines that let me surgically remove or fix
records at rest and then submit them back to Kafka. Since these records
have the same key, processors will treat them as replacements to earlier
records. Additionally, processors should honor timestamps and/or sequence
IDs and not the actual order of records in a partition. That way old data
can be ingested from HDFS -> Kafka idempotently.

Imagine that one record out of millions is bad and you don't notice it for
months. You can grab this record from HDFS, modify it, and then submit it
back to Kafka. Even tho it is in the stream months later than real-time,
processors will treat it as a replacement for the old bad record and the
entire system will end up exactly as if the record was never bad. If you
can achieve these semantics consistently, DR is straightforward.

- don't worry too much about offsets wrt consumer progress. Timestamps are
usually more important. If the above is in place, it doesn't matter if you
skip some records during failover. Just reprocess a few hours from cold
storage and it's like the failure never happened.

Ryanne

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018, 9:49 AM Henning Røigaard-Petersen <hrp@edlund.dk>
wrote:

> I am looking for advice on how to handle disasters not covered by the
> official methods of replication, whether intra-cluster replication (via
> replication factor and producer acks) or multi-cluster replication (using
> Confluent Replicator).
>
>
>
> We are looking into using Kafka not only as a broker for decoupling, but
> also as event store.
>
> For us, data is mission critical and has unlimited retention with the
> option to compact (required by GDPR).
>
>
>
> We are especially interested in two types of disasters:
>
> 1.       Unintentional or malicious use of the Kafka API to create or
> compact messages, as well as deletions of topics or logs.
>
> 2.       Loss of tail data from partitions if all ISR fail in the primary
> cluster. A special case of this is the loss of the tail from the commit
> topic, which results in loss of consumer progress.
>
>
>
> Ad (1)
>
> Replication does not guard against disaster (1), as the resulting messages
> and deletions spread to the replicas.
>
> A naive solution is to simply secure the cluster, and ensure that there
> are no errors in the code (…), but anyone with an ounce of experience with
> software knows that stuff goes wrong.
>
>
>
> Ad (2)
>
> The potential of disaster (2) is much worse. In case of total data center
> loss, the secondary cluster will lose the tail of every partition not fully
> replicated. Besides the data loss itself, there is now inconsistencies
> between related topics and partitions, which breaks the state of the system.
>
> Granted, the likelihood of total center loss is not great, but there is a
> reason we have multi-center setups.
>
> The special case with loss of consumer offsets results in double
> processing of events, once we resume processing from an older offset. While
> idempotency is a solution, it might not always be possible nor desirable.
>
>
>
> Once any of these types of disaster has occurred, there is no means to
> restore lost data, and even worse, we cannot restore the cluster to a point
> in time where it is consistent. We could probably look our customers in the
> eyes and tell them that they lost a days worth of progress, but we cannot
> inform them of a state of perpetual inconsistency.
>
>
>
> The only solution we can think of right now is to shut the primary cluster
> down (ensuring that no new events are produced), and then copy all files to
> some secure location, i.e. effectively creating a backup, allowing
> restoration to a consistency point in time. Though the tail (backup-wise)
> will be lost in case of disaster, we are ensured a consistent state to
> restore to.
>
> As a useful side effect, such backup-files can also be used to create
> environments for test or other destructive purposes.
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a better idea?
>
>
>
>
>
> Venlig hilsen / Best regards
>
> *Henning Røigaard-Petersen *
> Principal Developer
> MSc in Mathematics
>
> hrp@edlund.dk
>
> Direct phone
>
> +45 36150272
>
>
> [image: https://www.edlund.dk/sites/default/files/edlundnylogo1.png]
> <http://www.edlund.dk/>
>
> Edlund A/S
> La Cours Vej 7
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=La+Cours+Vej+7&entry=gmail&source=g>
> DK-2000 Frederiksberg
> Tel +45 36150630
> www.edlund.dk
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message