well, we decided to go with one topic per game (approach 2), as there are some consumers which are only interested in data from a single topic. makes it a bit harder for consumers interested in processing ALL events though.
not knowing more about your concrete situation, it is difficult to decide what is better in your case. cheers tim On 2012-06-19, at 15:12 , Guy Doulberg wrote: > Hi all, > > We'd like to consult with you about our Kafka architecture, > > We have Http endpoints that receive events from the web, and push them into > the system via kafka. The events are distinguishable by their HTTP url, and > are sharded to their corresponding topics. > > We have 2 designs in mind: > > 1. One main 'raw' topic, split to multiple enriched topics. > The endpoints write to one kafka topic, lets call it 'Raw topic'. > The above 'raw topic' is consumed by some kafka consumer which does the > following: > i - enrich the data (extract ip-to-location info, standardize browser/os > type, etc) > ii -feed the enriched data to a new topic, based on the referrer information. > > 2. Multiple 'raw' topics each fed to its corresponding 'enriched' topic. > Have the web endpoints shard the events based on their referrer, creating > multiple 'raw' topics, one per referrer type/domain. > Each 'raw' topic is then consumed, and a corresponding enriched stream/topic > is created from it. > > The dilemma is weather to do the separation to topics as soon as we can, at > the web endpoint (option 2) > or to postpone it as much as possible (option 1)..... > > I prefer option 1 , but tests I ran, reveaI that in a scenario where there > are many event types in the same topic, and some event types have many more > occurrences than others, the more frequent event types seem to "drown" the > less common ones, which roughly translates to the fact that less common > events may appear at their consumer side much later in time than the more > frequent ones. > If my system requires a 'timely' processing of events, this behaviour poses a > problem. > > What do you think? thanks > -- http://tim.lossen.de
