Thanks Ben, Todd We'll go with the 400 topics and see how it goes. Currently we have lots of problems bringing the brokers back up after a crash/restart and there was concern that it was being caused by having too many topics. From what you have said, it seems that 400 topics should not be an issue for a broker, so that means our recovery issues are caused by something else and we need to look into it further.
Shaun ________________________________________ From: Ben Stopford <b...@confluent.io> Sent: September 30, 2015 11:26 AM To: users@kafka.apache.org Subject: Re: number of topics given many consumers and groups within the data I agree. The only reason I can think of for the custom partitioning route would be if your group concept were to grow to a point where a topic-per-category strategy become prohibitive. This seems unlikely based on what you’ve said. I should also add that Todd is spot on regarding the SimpleConsumer not being something you’d want to pursue at this time. There is however a new consumer on trunk which makes these things a little easier. > On 30 Sep 2015, at 19:05, Pradeep Gollakota <pradeep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To add a little more context to Shaun's question, we have around 400 > customers. Each customer has a stream of events. Some customers generate a > lot of data while others don't. We need to ensure that each customer's data > is sorted globally by timestamp. > > We have two use cases around consumption: > > 1. A user may consume an individual customers data > 2. A user may consume data for all customers > > Given these two use cases, I think the better strategy is to have a > separate topic per customer as Todd suggested. > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Todd Palino <tpal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So I disagree with the idea to use custom partitioning, depending on your >> requirements. Having a consumer consume from a single partition is not >> (currently) that easy. If you don't care which consumer gets which >> partition (group), then it's not that bad. You have 20 partitions, you have >> 20 consumers, and you use custom partitioning as noted. The consumers use >> the high level consumer with a single group, each one will get one >> partition each, and it's pretty straightforward. If a consumer crashes, you >> will end up with two partitions on one of the remaining consumers. If this >> is OK, this is a decent solution. >> >> If, however, you require that each consumer always have the same group of >> data, and you need to know what that group is beforehand, it's more >> difficult. You need to use the simple consumer to do it, which means you >> need to implement a lot of logic for error and status code handling >> yourself, and do it right. In this case, I think your idea of using 400 >> separate topics is sound. This way you can still use the high level >> consumer, which takes care of the error handling for you, and your data is >> separated out by topic. >> >> Provided it is not an issue to implement it in your producer, I would go >> with the separate topics. Alternately, if you're not sure you always want >> separate topics, you could go with something similar to your second idea, >> but have a consumer read the single topic and split the data out into 400 >> separate topics in Kafka (no need for Cassandra or Redis or anything else). >> Then your real consumers can all consume their separate topics. Reading and >> writing the data one extra time is much better than rereading all of it 400 >> times and throwing most of it away. >> >> -Todd >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Ben Stopford <b...@confluent.io> wrote: >> >>> Hi Shaun >>> >>> You might consider using a custom partition assignment strategy to push >>> your different “groups" to different partitions. This would allow you >> walk >>> the middle ground between "all consumers consume everything” and “one >> topic >>> per consumer” as you vary the number of partitions in the topic, albeit >> at >>> the cost of a little extra complexity. >>> >>> Also, not sure if you’ve seen it but there is quite a good section in the >>> FAQ here < >>> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/FAQ#FAQ-HowmanytopicscanIhave >> ?> >>> on topic and partition sizing. >>> >>> B >>> >>>> On 29 Sep 2015, at 18:48, Shaun Senecal <shaun.sene...@lithium.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> >>>> I heave read Jay Kreps post regarding the number of topics that can be >>> handled by a broker ( >>> https://www.quora.com/How-many-topics-can-be-created-in-Apache-Kafka), >>> and it has left me with more questions that I dont see answered anywhere >>> else. >>>> >>>> >>>> We have a data stream which will be consumed by many consumers (~400). >>> We also have many "groups" within our data. A group in the data >>> corresponds 1:1 with what the consumers would consume, so consumer A only >>> ever see group A messages, consumer B only consumes group B messages, >> etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> The downstream consumers will be consuming via a websocket API, so the >>> API server will be the thing consuming from kafka. >>>> >>>> >>>> If I use a single topic with, say, 20 partitions, the consumers in the >>> API server would need to re-read the same messages over and over for each >>> consumer, which seems like a waste of network and a potential bottleneck. >>>> >>>> >>>> Alternatively, I could use a single topic with 20 partitions and have a >>> single consumer in the API put the messages into cassandra/redis (as >>> suggested by Jay), and serve out the downstream consumer streams that >> way. >>> However, that requires using a secondary sorted storage, which seems >> like a >>> waste (and added complexity) given that Kafka already has the data >> exactly >>> as I need it. Especially if cassandra/redis are required to maintain a >>> long TTL on the stream. >>>> >>>> >>>> Finally, I could use 1 topic per group, each with a single partition. >>> This would result in 400 topics on the broker, but would allow the API >>> server to simply serve the stream for each consumer directly from kafka >> and >>> wont require additional machinery to serve out the requests. >>>> >>>> >>>> The 400 topic solution makes the most sense to me (doesnt require extra >>> services, doesnt waste resources), but seem to conflict with best >>> practices, so I wanted to ask the community for input. Has anyone done >>> this before? What makes the most sense here? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> >>>> Shaun >>> >>> >>
