We designed Kafka to be able to act as a unified platform for handling all the real-time data feeds a large company might have. To do this we had to think through a fairly broad set of use cases.
It would have to have high-throughput to support high volume event streams such as real-time log aggregation.
It would need to deal gracefully with large data backlogs to be able to support periodic data loads from offline systems.
It also meant the system would have to handle low-latency delivery to handle more traditional messaging use-cases.
We wanted to support partitioned, distributed, real-time processing of these feeds to create new, derived feeds. This motivated our partitioning and consumer model.
Finally in cases where the stream is fed into other data systems for serving we knew the system would have to be able to guarantee fault-tolerance in the presence of machine failures.
Supporting these uses led us to a design with a number of unique elements, more akin to a database log then a traditional messaging system. We will outline some elements of the design in the following sections.
Kafka relies heavily on the filesystem for storing and caching messages. There is a general perception that "disks are slow" which makes people skeptical that a persistent structure can offer competitive performance. In fact disks are both much slower and much faster than people expect depending on how they are used; and a properly designed disk structure can often be as fast as the network.
The key fact about disk performance is that the throughput of hard drives has been diverging from the latency of a disk seek for the last decade. As a result the performance of linear writes on a JBOD configuration with six 7200rpm SATA RAID-5 array is about 600MB/sec but the performance of random writes is only about 100k/sec—a difference of over 6000X. These linear reads and writes are the most predictable of all usage patterns, and are heavily optimized by the operating system. A modern operating system provides read-ahead and write-behind techniques that prefetch data in large block multiples and group smaller logical writes into large physical writes. A further discussion of this issue can be found in this ACM Queue article; they actually find that sequential disk access can in some cases be faster than random memory access!
To compensate for this performance divergence modern operating systems have become increasingly aggressive in their use of main memory for disk caching. A modern OS will happily divert all free memory to disk caching with little performance penalty when the memory is reclaimed. All disk reads and writes will go through this unified cache. This feature cannot easily be turned off without using direct I/O, so even if a process maintains an in-process cache of the data, this data will likely be duplicated in OS pagecache, effectively storing everything twice.
Furthermore we are building on top of the JVM, and anyone who has spent any time with Java memory usage knows two things:
As a result of these factors using the filesystem and relying on pagecache is superior to maintaining an in-memory cache or other structure—we at least double the available cache by having automatic access to all free memory, and likely double again by storing a compact byte structure rather than individual objects. Doing so will result in a cache of up to 28-30GB on a 32GB machine without GC penalties. Furthermore this cache will stay warm even if the service is restarted, whereas the in-process cache will need to be rebuilt in memory (which for a 10GB cache may take 10 minutes) or else it will need to start with a completely cold cache (which likely means terrible initial performance). This also greatly simplifies the code as all logic for maintaining coherency between the cache and filesystem is now in the OS, which tends to do so more efficiently and more correctly than one-off in-process attempts. If your disk usage favors linear reads then read-ahead is effectively pre-populating this cache with useful data on each disk read.
This suggests a design which is very simple: rather than maintain as much as possible in-memory and flush it all out to the filesystem in a panic when we run out of space, we invert that. All data is immediately written to a persistent log on the filesystem without necessarily flushing to disk. In effect this just means that it is transferred into the kernel's pagecache.
This style of pagecache-centric design is described in an article on the design of Varnish here (along with a healthy dose of arrogance).
The persistent data structure used in messaging systems are often a per-consumer queue with an associated BTree or other general-purpose random access data structures to maintain metadata about messages. BTrees are the most versatile data structure available, and make it possible to support a wide variety of transactional and non-transactional semantics in the messaging system. They do come with a fairly high cost, though: Btree operations are O(log N). Normally O(log N) is considered essentially equivalent to constant time, but this is not true for disk operations. Disk seeks come at 10 ms a pop, and each disk can do only one seek at a time so parallelism is limited. Hence even a handful of disk seeks leads to very high overhead. Since storage systems mix very fast cached operations with very slow physical disk operations, the observed performance of tree structures is often superlinear as data increases with fixed cache--i.e. doubling your data makes things much worse then twice as slow.
Intuitively a persistent queue could be built on simple reads and appends to files as is commonly the case with logging solutions. This structure has the advantage that all operations are O(1) and reads do not block writes or each other. This has obvious performance advantages since the performance is completely decoupled from the data size—one server can now take full advantage of a number of cheap, low-rotational speed 1+TB SATA drives. Though they have poor seek performance, these drives have acceptable performance for large reads and writes and come at 1/3 the price and 3x the capacity.
Having access to virtually unlimited disk space without any performance penalty means that we can provide some features not usually found in a messaging system. For example, in Kafka, instead of attempting to deleting messages as soon as they are consumed, we can retain messages for a relative long period (say a week). This leads to a great deal of flexibility for consumers, as we will describe.
We have put significant effort into efficiency. One of our primary use cases is handling web activity data, which is very high volume: each page view may generate dozens of writes. Furthermore we assume each message published is read by at least one consumer (often many), hence we strive to make consumption as cheap as possible.
We have also found, from experience building and running a number of similar systems, that efficiency is a key to effective multi-tenant operations. If the downstream infrastructure service can easily become a bottleneck due to a small bump in usage by the application, such small changes will often create problems. By being very fast we help ensure that the application will tip-over under load before the infrastructure. This is particularly important when trying to run a centralized service that supports dozens or hundreds of applications on a centralized cluster as changes in usage patterns are a near-daily occurrence.
We discussed disk efficiency in the previous section. Once poor disk access patterns have been eliminated, there are two common causes of inefficiency in this type of system: too many small I/O operations, and excessive byte copying.
The small I/O problem happens both between the client and the server and in the server's own persistent operations.
To avoid this, our protocol is built around a "message set" abstraction that naturally groups messages together. This allows network requests to group messages together and amortize the overhead of the network roundtrip rather than sending a single message at a time. The server in turn appends chunks of messages to its log in one go, and the consumer fetches large linear chunks at a time.
This simple optimization produces orders of magnitude speed up. Batching leads to larger network packets, larger sequential disk operations, contiguous memory blocks, and so on, all of which allows Kafka to turn a bursty stream of random message writes into linear writes that flow to the consumers.
The other inefficiency is in byte copying. At low message rates this is not an issue, but under load the impact is significant. To avoid this we employ a standardized binary message format that is shared by the producer, the broker, and the consumer (so data chunks can be transferred without modification between them).
The message log maintained by the broker is itself just a directory of files, each populated by a sequence of message sets that have been written to disk in the same format used by the producer and consumer. Maintaining this common format allows optimization of the most important operation: network transfer of persistent log chunks. Modern unix operating systems offer a highly optimized code path for transferring data out of pagecache to a socket; in Linux this is done with the sendfile system call.
To understand the impact of sendfile, it is important to understand the common data path for transfer of data from file to socket:
This is clearly inefficient, there are four copies and two system calls. Using sendfile, this re-copying is avoided by allowing the OS to send the data from pagecache to the network directly. So in this optimized path, only the final copy to the NIC buffer is needed.
We expect a common use case to be multiple consumers on a topic. Using the zero-copy optimization above, data is copied into pagecache exactly once and reused on each consumption instead of being stored in memory and copied out to kernel space every time it is read. This allows messages to be consumed at a rate that approaches the limit of the network connection.
This combination of pagecache and sendfile means that on a Kafka cluster where the consumers are mostly caught up you will see no read activity on the disks whatsoever as they will be serving data entirely from cache.
For more background on the sendfile and zero-copy support in Java, see this article.
In some cases the bottleneck is actually not CPU or disk but network bandwidth. This is particularly true for a data pipeline that needs to send messages between data centers over a wide-area network. Of course the user can always compress its messages one at a time without any support needed from Kafka, but this can lead to very poor compression ratios as much of the redundancy is due to repetition between messages of the same type (e.g. field names in JSON or user agents in web logs or common string values). Efficient compression requires compressing multiple messages together rather than compressing each message individually.
Kafka supports this by allowing recursive message sets. A batch of messages can be clumped together compressed and sent to the server in this form. This batch of messages will be written in compressed form and will remain compressed in the log and will only be decompressed by the consumer.
Kafka supports GZIP and Snappy compression protocols. More details on compression can be found here.
The producer sends data directly to the broker that is the leader for the partition without any intervening routing tier. To help the producer do this all Kafka nodes can answer a request for metadata about which servers are alive and where the leaders for the partitions of a topic are at any given time to allow the producer to appropriate direct its requests.
The client controls which partition it publishes messages to. This can be done at random, implementing a kind of random load balancing, or it can be done by some semantic partitioning function. We expose the interface for semantic partitioning by allowing the user to specify a key to partition by and using this to hash to a partition (there is also an option to override the partition function if need be). For example if the key chosen was a user id then all data for a given user would be sent to the same partition. This in turn will allow consumers to make locality assumptions about their consumption. This style of partitioning is explicitly designed to allow locality-sensitive processing in consumers.
Batching is one of the big drivers of efficiency, and to enable batching the Kafka producer has an asynchronous mode that accumulates data in memory and sends out larger batches in a single request. The batching can be configured to accumulate no more than a fixed number of messages and to wait no longer than some fixed latency bound (say 100 messages or 5 seconds). This allows the accumulation of more bytes to send, and few larger I/O operations on the servers. Since this buffering happens in the client it obviously reduces the durability as any data buffered in memory and not yet sent will be lost in the event of a producer crash.
An initial question we considered is whether consumers should pull data from brokers or brokers should push data to the consumer. In this respect Kafka follows a more traditional design, shared by most messaging systems, where data is pushed to the broker from the producer and pulled from the broker by the consumer. Some logging-centric systems, such as scribe and flume follow a very different push based path where data is pushed downstream. There are pros and cons to both approaches. However a push-based system has difficulty dealing with diverse consumers as the broker controls the rate at which data is transferred. The goal is generally for the consumer to be able to consume at the maximum possible rate; unfortunately in a push system this means the consumer tends to be overwhelmed when its rate of consumption falls below the rate of production (a denial of service attack, in essence). A pull-based system has the nicer property that the consumer simply falls behind and catches up when it can. This can be mitigated with some kind of backoff protocol by which the consumer can indicate it is overwhelmed, but getting the rate of transfer to fully utilize (but never over-utilize) the consumer is trickier than it seems. Previous attempts at building systems in this fashion led us to go with a more traditional pull model.
Another advantage of a pull-based system is that it lends itself to aggressive batching of data sent to the consumer. A push-based system must choose to either send a request immediately or accumulate more data and then send it later without knowledge of whether the downstream consumer will be able to immediately process it. If tuned for low latency this will result in sending a single message at a time only for the transfer to end up being buffered anyway, which is wasteful. A pull-based design fixes this as the consumer always pulls all available messages after its current position in the log (or up to some configurable max size). So one gets optimal batching without introducing unnecessary latency.
The deficiency of a naive pull-based system is that if the broker has no data the consumer may end up polling in a tight loop, effectively busy-waiting for data to arrive. To avoid this we have parameters in our pull request that allow the consumer request to block in a "long poll" waiting until data arrives (and optionally waiting until a given number of bytes is available to ensure large transfer sizes).
You could imagine other possible designs which would be only pull, end-to-end. The producer would locally write to a local log, and brokers would pull from that with consumers pulling from them. A similar type of "store-and-forward" producer is often proposed. This is intriguing but we felt not very suitable for our target use cases which have thousands of producers. Our experience running persistent data systems at scale led us to feel that involving thousands of disks in the system across many applications would not actually make things more reliable and would be a nightmare to operate. And in practice we have found that we can run a pipeline with strong SLAs at large scale without a need for producer persistence.
Most messaging systems keep metadata about what messages have been consumed on the broker. That is, as a message is handed out to a consumer, the broker either records that fact locally immediately or it may wait for acknowledgement from the consumer. This is a fairly intuitive choice, and indeed for a single machine server it is not clear where else this state could go. Since the data structure used for storage in many messaging systems scale poorly, this is also a pragmatic choice--since the broker knows what is consumed it can immediately delete it, keeping the data size small.
What is perhaps not obvious, is that getting the broker and consumer to come into agreement about what has been consumed is not a trivial problem. If the broker records a message as consumed immediately every time it is handed out over the network, then if the consumer fails to process the message (say because it crashes or the request times out or whatever) that message will be lost. To solve this problem, many messaging systems add an acknowledgement feature which means that messages are only marked as sent not consumed when they are sent; the broker waits for a specific acknowledgement from the consumer to record the message as consumed. This strategy fixes the problem of losing messages, but creates new problems. First of all, if the consumer processes the message but fails before it can send an acknowledgement then the message will be consumed twice. The second problem is around performance, now the broker must keep multiple states about every single message (first to lock it so it is not given out a second time, and then to mark it as permanently consumed so that it can be removed). Tricky problems must be dealt with, like what to do with messages that are sent but never acknowledged.
Kafka handles this differently. Our topic is divided into a set of totally ordered partitions, each of which is consumed by one consumer at any given time. This means that the position of consumer in each partition is just a single integer, the offset of the next message to consume. This makes the state about what has been consumed very small, just one number for each partition. This state can be periodically checkpointed. This makes the equivalent of message acknowledgements very cheap.
There is a side benefit of this decision. A consumer can deliberately rewind back to an old offset and re-consume data. This violates the common contract of a queue, but turns out to be an essential feature for many consumers. For example, if the consumer code has a bug and is discovered after some messages are consumed, the consumer can re-consume those messages once the bug is fixed.
In the case of Hadoop we parallelize the data load by splitting the load over individual map tasks, one for each node/topic/partition combination, allowing full parallelism in the loading. Hadoop provides the task management, and tasks which fail can restart without danger of duplicate data—they simply restart from their original position.
Now that we understand a little about how producers and consumers work, let's discuss the semantic guarantees Kafka provides between producer and consumer. Clearly there are multiple possible message delivery guarantees that could be provided:
Many systems claim to provide "exactly once" delivery semantics, but it is important to read the fine print, most of these claims are misleading (i.e. they don't translate to the case where consumers or producers can fail, or cases where there are multiple consumer processes, or cases where data written to disk can be lost).
Kafka's semantics are straight-forward. When publishing a message we have a notion of the message being "committed" to the log. Once a published message is committed it will not be lost as long as one broker that replicates the partition to which this message was written remains "alive". The definition of alive as well as a description of which types of failures we attempt to handle will be described in more detail in the next section. For now let's assume a perfect, lossless broker and try to understand the guarantees to the producer and consumer. If a producer attempts to publish a message and experiences a network error it cannot be sure if this error happened before or after the message was committed. This is similar to the semantics of inserting into a database table with an autogenerated key.
These are not the strongest possible semantics for publishers. Although we cannot be sure of what happened in the case of a network error, it is possible to allow the producer to generate a sort of "primary key" that makes retrying the produce request idempotent. This feature is not trivial for a replicated system because of course it must work even (or especially) in the case of a server failure. With this feature it would suffice for the producer to retry until it receives acknowledgement of a successfully committed message at which point we would guarantee the message had been published exactly once. We hope to add this in a future Kafka version.
Not all use cases require such strong guarantees. For uses which are latency sensitive we allow the producer to specify the durability level it desires. If the producer specifies that it wants to wait on the message being committed this can take on the order of 10 ms. However the producer can also specify that it wants to perform the send completely asynchronously or that it wants to wait only until the leader (but not necessarily the followers) have the message.
Now let's describe the semantics from the point-of-view of the consumer. All replicas have the exact same log with the same offsets. The consumer controls its position in this log. If the consumer never crashed it could just store this position in memory, but if the producer fails and we want this topic partition to be taken over by another process the new process will need to choose an appropriate position from which to start processing. Let's say the consumer reads some messages -- it has several options for processing the messages and updating its position.
So effectively Kafka guarantees at-least-once delivery by default and allows the user to implement at most once delivery by disabling retries on the producer and committing its offset prior to processing a batch of messages. Exactly-once delivery requires co-operation with the destination storage system but Kafka provides the offset which makes implementing this straight-forward.
Kafka replicates the log for each topic's partitions across a configurable number of servers (you can set this replication factor on a topic-by-topic basis). This allows automatic failover to these replicas when a server in the cluster fails so messages remain available in the presence of failures.
Other messaging systems provide some replication-related features, but, in our (totally biased) opinion, this appears to be a tacked-on thing, not heavily used, and with large downsides: slaves are inactive, throughput is heavily impacted, it requires fiddly manual configuration, etc. Kafka is meant to be used with replication by default—in fact we implement un-replicated topics as replicated topics where the replication factor is one.
The unit of replication is the topic partition. Under non-failure conditions, each partition in Kafka has a single leader and zero or more followers. The total number of replicas including the leader constitute the replication factor. All reads and writes go to the leader of the partition. Typically, there are many more partitions than brokers and the leaders are evenly distributed among brokers. The logs on the followers are identical to the leader's log—all have the same offsets and messages in the same order (though, of course, at any given time the leader may have a few as-yet unreplicated messages at the end of its log).
Followers consume messages from the leader just as a normal Kafka consumer would and apply them to their own log. Having the followers pull from the leader has the nice property of allowing the follower to naturally batch together log entries they are applying to their log.
As with most distributed systems automatically handling failures requires having a precise definition of what it means for a node to be "alive". For Kafka node liveness has two conditions
In distributed systems terminology we only attempt to handle a "fail/recover" model of failures where nodes suddenly cease working and then later recover (perhaps without knowing that they have died). Kafka does not handle so-called "Byzantine" failures in which nodes produce arbitrary or malicious responses (perhaps due to bugs or foul play).
A message is considered "committed" when all in sync replicas for that partition have applied it to their log. Only committed messages are ever given out to the consumer. This means that the consumer need not worry about potentially seeing a message that could be lost if the leader fails. Producers, on the other hand, have the option of either waiting for the message to be committed or not, depending on their preference for tradeoff between latency and durability. This preference is controlled by the request.required.acks setting that the producer uses.
The guarantee that Kafka offers is that a committed message will not be lost, as long as there is at least one in sync replica alive, at all times.
Kafka will remain available in the presence of node failures after a short fail-over period, but may not remain available in the presence of network partitions.
A replicated log models the process of coming into consensus on the order of a series of values (generally numbering the log entries 0, 1, 2, ...). There are many ways to implement this, but the simplest and fastest is with a leader who chooses the ordering of values provided to it. As long as the leader remains alive, all followers need to only copy the values and ordering, the leader chooses.
Of course if leaders didn't fail we wouldn't need followers! When the leader does die we need to choose a new leader from among the followers. But followers themselves may fall behind or crash so we must ensure we choose an up-to-date follower. The fundamental guarantee a log replication algorithm must provide is that if we tell the client a message is committed, and the leader fails, the new leader we elect must also have that message. This yields a tradeoff: if the leader waits for more followers to acknowledge a message before declaring it committed then there will be more potentially electable leaders.
If you choose the number of acknowledgements required and the number of logs that must be compared to elect a leader such that there is guaranteed to be an overlap, then this is called a Quorum.
A common approach to this tradeoff is to use a majority vote for both the commit decision and the leader election. This is not what Kafka does, but let's explore it anyway to understand the tradeoffs. Let's say we have 2f+1 replicas. If f+1 replicas must receive a message prior to a commit being declared by the leader, and if we elect a new leader by electing the follower with the most complete log from at least f+1 replicas, then, with no more than f failures, the leader is guaranteed to have all committed messages. This is because among any f+1 replicas, there must be at least one replica that contains all committed messages. That replica's log will be the most complete and therefore will be selected as the new leader. There are many remaining details that each algorithm must handle (such as precisely defined what makes a log more complete, ensuring log consistency during leader failure or changing the set of servers in the replica set) but we will ignore these for now.
This majority vote approach has a very nice property: the latency is dependent on only the fastest servers. That is, if the replication factor is three, the latency is determined by the faster slave not the slower one.
There are a rich variety of algorithms in this family including Zookeeper's Zab, Raft, and Viewstamped Replication. The most similar academic publication we are aware of to Kafka's actual implementation is PacificA from Microsoft.
The downside of majority vote is that it doesn't take many failures to leave you with no electable leaders. To tolerate one failure requires three copies of the data, and to tolerate two failures requires five copies of the data. In our experience having only enough redundancy to tolerate a single failure is not enough for a practical system, but doing every write five times, with 5x the disk space requirements and 1/5th the throughput, is not very practical for large volume data problems. This is likely why quorum algorithms more commonly appear for shared cluster configuration such as Zookeeper but are less common for primary data storage. For example in HDFS the namenode's high-availability feature is built on a majority-vote-based journal, but this more expensive approach is not used for the data itself.
Kafka takes a slightly different approach to choosing its quorum set. Instead of majority vote, Kafka dynamically maintains a set of in-sync replicas (ISR) that are caught-up to the leader. Only members of this set are eligible for election as leader. A write to a Kafka partition is not considered committed until all in-sync replicas have received the write. This ISR set is persisted to zookeeper whenever it changes. Because of this, any replica in the ISR is eligible to be elected leader. This is an important factor for Kafka's usage model where there are many partitions and ensuring leadership balance is important. With this ISR model and f+1 replicas, a Kafka topic can tolerate f failures without losing committed messages.
For most use cases we hope to handle, we think this tradeoff is a reasonable one. In practice, to tolerate f failures, both the majority vote and the ISR approach will wait for the same number of replicas to acknowledge before committing a message (e.g. to survive one failure a majority quorum needs three replicas and one acknowledgement and the ISR approach requires two replicas and one acknowledgement). The ability to commit without the slowest servers is an advantage of the majority vote approach. However, we think it is ameliorated by allowing the client to choose whether they block on the message commit or not, and the additional throughput and disk space due to the lower required replication factor is worth it.
Another important design distinction is that Kafka does not require that crashed nodes recover with all their data intact. It is not uncommon for replication algorithms in this space to depend on the existence of "stable storage" that cannot be lost in any failure-recovery scenario without potential consistency violations. There are two primary problems with this assumption. First, disk errors are the most common problem we observe in real operation of persistent data systems and they often do not leave data intact. Secondly, even if this were not a problem, we do not want to require the use of fsync on every write for our consistency guarantees as this can reduce performance by two to three orders of magnitude. Our protocol for allowing a replica to rejoin the ISR ensures that before rejoining, it must fully re-sync again even if it lost unflushed data in its crash.
However a practical system needs to do something reasonable when all in-sync replicas die. If you are unlucky enough to have this occur, it is important to consider what will happen. There are two behaviors that could be implemented:
This is a simple tradeoff between availability and consistency. If we wait for replicas in the ISR, then we will remain unavailable as long as those replicas are down. If such replicas were destroyed or their data was lost, then we are permanently down. If, on the other hand, a non-in-sync replica comes back to life and we allow it to become the leader, then its log becomes the source of truth even though it is not guaranteed to have every committed message. In our current release we choose the second strategy and favor choosing a potentially inconsistent replica when all replicas in the ISR are dead. In the future, we would like to make this configurable to better support use cases where downtime is preferable to inconsistency.
This dilemma is not specific to Kafka. It exists in any quorum-based scheme. For example in a majority voting scheme, if a majority of servers suffer a permanent failure, then you must either choose to lose 100% of your data or violate consistency by taking what remains on an existing server as your new source of truth.
It is also important to optimize the leadership election process as that is the critical window of unavailability. A naive implementation of leader election would end up running an election per partition for all partitions a node hosted when that node failed. Instead, we elect one of the brokers as the "controller". This controller detects failures at the broker level and is responsible for changing the leader of all affected partitions in a failed broker. The result is that we are able to batch together many of the required leadership change notifications which makes the election process far cheaper and faster for a large number of partitions. If the controller fails, one of the surviving brokers will become the new controller.
