I have written a cloud storage trigger based cloud function. I have 10-15 files landing at 5 secs interval in cloud bucket which loads data into a bigquery table(truncate and load).
While there are 10 files in the bucket I want cloud function to process them in sequential manner i.e 1 file at a time as all the files accesses the same table for operation.
Currently cloud function is getting triggered for multiple files at a time and it fails in BIgquery operation as multiple files trying to access the same table.
Is there any way to configure this in cloud function??
Thanks in Advance!
You can achieve this by using pubsub, and the max instance param on Cloud Function.
Firstly, use the notification capability of Google Cloud Storage and sink the event into a PubSub topic.
Now you will receive a message every time that a event occur on the bucket. If you want to filter on file creation only (object finalize) you can apply a filter on the subscription. I wrote an article on this
Then, create an HTTP functions (http function is required if you want to apply a filter) with the max instance set to 1. Like this, only 1 function can be executed in the same time. So, no concurrency!
Finally, create a PubSub subscription on the topic, with a filter or not, to call your function in HTTP.
EDIT
Thanks to your code, I understood what happens. In fact, BigQuery is a declarative system. When you perform a request or a load job, a job is created and it works in background.
In python, you can explicitly wait the end on the job, but, with pandas, I didn't find how!!
I just found a Google Cloud page to explain how to migrate from pandas to BigQuery client library. As you can see, there is a line at the end
# Wait for the load job to complete.
job.result()
than wait the end of the job.
You did it well in the _insert_into_bigquery_dwh function but it's not the case in the staging _insert_into_bigquery_staging one. This can lead to 2 issues:
The dwh function work on the old data because the staging isn't yet finish when you trigger this job
If the staging take, let's say, 10 seconds and run in "background" (you don't wait the end explicitly in your code) and the dwh take 1 seconds, the next file is processed at the end of the dwh function, even if the staging one continue to run in background. And that leads to your issue.
The architecture you describe isn't the same as the one from the documentation you linked. Note that in the flow diagram and the code samples the storage events triggers the cloud function which will stream the data directly to the destination table. Since BigQuery allow for multiple streaming insert jobs several functions could be executed at the same time without problems. In your use case the intermediate table used to load with write-truncate for data cleaning makes a big difference because each execution needs the previous one to finish thus requiring a sequential processing approach.
I would like to point out that PubSub doesn't allow to configure the rate at which messages are sent, if 10 messages arrive to the topic they all will be sent to the subscriber, even if processed one at a time. Limiting the function to one instance may lead to overhead for the above reason and could increase latency as well. That said, since the expected workload is 15-30 files a day the above maybe isn't a big concern.
If you'd like to have parallel executions you may try creating a new table for each message and set a short expiration deadline for it using table.expires(exp_datetime) setter method so that multiple executions don't conflict with each other. Here is the related library reference. Otherwise the great answer from Guillaume would completely get the job done.
Related
I am interested in doing automated real-time data processing on AWS using Lambda and I am not certain about how I can trigger my Lambda function. My data processing code involves taking multiple files and concatenating them into a single data frame after performing calculations on each file. Since files are uploaded simultaneously onto S3 and files are dependent on each other, I would like the Lambda to be only triggered when all files are uploaded.
Current Approaches/Attempts:
-I am considering an S3 trigger, but my concern is that an S3 Trigger will result in an error in the case where a single file upload triggers the Lambda to start. An alternate option would be adding a wait time but that is not preferred to limit the computation resources used.
-A scheduled trigger using Cloudwatch/EventBridge, but this would not be real-time processing.
-SNS trigger, but I am not certain if the message can be automated without knowing the completion in file uploads.
Any suggestion is appreciated! Thank you!
If you really cannot do it with a scheduled function, the best option is to trigger a Lambda function when an object is created.
The tricky bit is that it will fire your function on each object upload. So you either can identify the "last part", e.g., based on some meta data, or you will need to store and track the state of all uploads, e.g. in a DynamoDB, and do the actual processing only when a batch is complete.
Best, Stefan
Your file coming in parts might be named as -
filename_part1.ext
filename_part2.ext
If any of your systems is generating those files, then use the system to generate a final dummy blank file name as -
filename.final
Since in your S3 event trigger you can use a suffix to generate an event, use .final extension to invoke lambda, and process records.
In an alternative approach, if you do not have access to the server putting objects to your s3 bucket, then with each PUT operation in your s3 bucket, invoke the lambda and insert an entry in dynamoDB.
You need to put a unique entry per file (not file parts) in dynamo with -
filename and last_part_recieved_time
The last_part_recieved_time keeps getting updated till you keep getting the file parts.
Now, this table can be looked up by a cron lambda invocation which checks if the time skew (time difference between SYSTIME of lambda invocation and dynamoDB entry - last_part_recieved_time) is enough to process the records.
I will still prefer to go with the first approach as the second one still has a chance for error.
Since you want this to be as real time as possible, perhaps you could just perform your logic every single time a file is uploaded, updating the version of the output as new files are added, and iterating through an S3 prefix per grouping of files, like in this other SO answer.
In terms of the architecture, you could add in an SQS queue or two to make this more resilient. An S3 Put Event can trigger an SQS message, which can trigger a Lambda function, and you can have error handling logic in the Lambda function that puts that event in a secondary queue with a visibility timeout (sort of like a backoff strategy) or back in the same queue for retries.
I have a client that performs a weekly data upload of 3 CSV files to an S3 bucket, always within (at most) 5 minutes of each other. I have python code that ingests the 3 files, aggregates them, and writes and output that I would like to use to create a lambda function to fully automate this job. The issue is that I can't configure an S3 trigger that is every 3 object creates. I could have the lambda trigger every upload and exit until the 3 files are there but I don't want to do that as it's not really cost effective.
So I came across this question here that suggested having an SNS Topic that gets notified after a batch of uploads is completed, however I'm having trouble figuring out how to configure that. Basically what I'd like to do is create something similar to a CloudWatch Alarm that triggers when 3 object PUTS have occurred within 5 minutes of each other. Is this possible? Or, how can I configure my SNS event in a way as is suggested in the linked question?
I think you are misreading the answer in the post you linked. The SNS option is literally someone just sending an SNS message after they have pushed their batch of files to S3. So the sender would need to update their process to include a new SNS message step.
Option 3 in that question/answer is about using S3 triggers to handle this in an automatic fashion, without the sender needing to do any extra steps besides upload files, but it is also much more complicated since it involves using a DynamoDB table with Atomic Counters to ensure the files aren't processed multiple times.
I would like to point out that your concern over the cost effectiveness of triggering a Lambda function for each S3 object is going to be on the order of a few pennies a month, maybe less.
I'm trying to achieve exactly-once delivery using Google Dataflow and PubSub using Apache Beam SDK 2.6.0.
Use case is quite simple:
'Generator' dataflow job sends 1M messages to PubSub topic.
GenerateSequence
.from(0)
.to(1000000)
.withRate(100000, Duration.standardSeconds(1L));
'Archive' dataflow job reads messages from PubSub subscription and saves to Google Cloud Storage.
pipeline
.apply("Read events",
PubsubIO.readMessagesWithAttributes()
// this is to achieve exactly-once delivery
.withIdAttribute(ATTRIBUTE_ID)
.fromSubscription('subscription')
.withTimestampAttribute(TIMESTAMP_ATTRIBUTE))
.apply("Window events",
Window.<Dto>into(FixedWindows.of(Duration.millis(options.getWindowDuration())))
.triggering(Repeatedly.forever(AfterWatermark.pastEndOfWindow()))
.withAllowedLateness(Duration.standardMinutes(15))
.discardingFiredPanes())
.apply("Events count metric", ParDo.of(new CountMessagesMetric()))
.apply("Write files to archive",
FileIO.<String, Dto>writeDynamic()
.by(Dto::getDataSource).withDestinationCoder(StringUtf8Coder.of())
.via(Contextful.of((msg, ctx) -> msg.getData(), Requirements.empty()), TextIO.sink())
.to(archiveDir)
.withTempDirectory(archiveDir)
.withNumShards(options.getNumShards())
.withNaming(dataSource ->
new SyslogWindowedDataSourceFilenaming(dataSource, archiveDir, filenamePrefix, filenameSuffix)
));
I added 'withIdAttribute' to both Pubsub.IO.Write ('Generator' job) and PubsubIO.Read ('Archive' job) and expect that it will guarantee exactly-once semantics.
I would like to test the 'negative' scenario:
'Generator' dataflow job sends 1M messages to PubSub topic.
'Archive' dataflow job starts to work, but I stop it in the middle of processing clicking 'Stop job' -> 'Drain'. Some portion of messages has been processed and saved to Cloud Storage, let's say 400K messages.
I start 'Archive' job again and do expect that it will take unprocessed messages (600K) and eventually I will see exactly 1M messages saved to Storage.
What I got in fact - all messages are delivered (at-least-once is achieved), but on top of that there are a lot of duplicates - something in the neighborhood of 30-50K per 1M messages.
Is there any solution to achieve exactly-once delivery?
Dataflow does not enable you to persist state across runs. If you use Java you can update a running pipeline in a way that does not cause it to lose the existing state, allowing you to deduplicate across pipeline releases.
If this doesn't work for you, you may want to archive messages in a way where they are keyed by ATTRIBUTE_ID, e.g,. Spanner or GCS using this as the file name.
So, I've never done it myself, but reasoning about your problem this is how I would approach it...
My solution is a bit convoluted, but I failed to identify others way to achieve this without involving other external services. So, here goes nothing.
You could have your pipeline reading both from pubsub and GCS and then combine them to de-duplicate the data. The tricky part here is that one would be a bounded pCollection (GCS) and the other an unbounded one (pubsub). You can add timestamps to the bounded collection and then window the data. During this stage you could potentially drop GCS data older than ~15 minutes (the duration of the window in your precedent implementation). These two steps (i.e. adding timestamps properly and dropping data that is probably old enough to not create duplicates) are by far the trickiest parts.
Once this has been solved append the two pCollections and then use a GroupByKey on an Id that is common for both sets of data. This will yield a PCollection<KV<Long, Iterable<YOUR_DATUM_TYPE>>. Then you can use an additional DoFn that drops all but the first element in the resulting Iterable and also removes the KV<> boxing. From there on you can simply continue processing the data as your normally would.
Finally, this additional work should be necessary only for the first pubsub window when restarting the pipeline. After that you should re-assign the GCS pCollection to an empty pCollection so the group by key doesn't do too much additional work.
Let me know what you think and if this could work. Also, if you decide to pursue this strategy, please post your mileage :).
In the meanwhile Pub/Sub has support for Exactly once delivery.
It is currently in the pre-GA launch state, so unfortunately not ready for production use yet.
I have a large number of logfiles from a service that I need to regularly run analysis on via EMR/Hive. There are thousands of new files per day, and they can technically come out of order relative to the file name (e.g. a batch of files comes a week after the date in the file name).
I did an initial load of the files via Snowball, then set up a script that syncs the entire directory tree once per day using the 'aws s3 sync' cli command. This is good enough for now, but I will need a more realtime solution in the near future. The issue with this approach is that it takes a very long time, on the order of 30 minutes per day. And using a ton of bandwidth all at once! I assume this is because it needs to scan the entire directory tree to determine what files are new, then sends them all at once.
A realtime solution would be beneficial in 2 ways. One, I can get the analysis I need without waiting up to a day. Two, the network use would be lower and more spread out, instead of spiking once a day.
It's clear that 'aws s3 sync' isn't the right tool here. Has anyone dealt with a similar situation?
One potential solution could be:
Set up a service on the log-file side that continuously syncs (or aws s3 cp) new files based on the modified date. But wouldn't that need to scan the whole directory tree on the log server as well?
For reference, the log-file directory structure is like:
/var/log/files/done/{year}/{month}/{day}/{source}-{hour}.txt
There is also a /var/log/files/processing/ directory for files being written to.
Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
You could have a Lambda function triggered automatically as a new object is saved on your S3 bucket. Check Using AWS Lambda with Amazon S3 for details. The event passed to the Lambda function will contain the file name, allowing you to target only the new files in the syncing process.
If you'd like wait until you have, say 1,000 files, in order to sync in batch, you could use AWS SQS and the following workflow (using 2 Lambda functions, 1 CloudWatch rule and 1 SQS queue):
S3 invokes Lambda whenever there's a new file to sync
Lambda stores the filename in SQS
CloudWatch triggers another Lambda function every X minutes/hours to check how many files are there in SQS for syncing. Once there's 1,000 or more, it retrieves those filenames and run the syncing process.
Keep in mind that Lambda has a hard timeout of 5 minutes. If you sync job takes too long, you'll need to break it in smaller chunks.
You could set the bucket up to log HTTP requests to a separate bucket, then parse the log to look for newly created files and their paths. One troublespot, as well as PUT requests, you have to look for the multipart upload ops which are a sequence of POSTs. Best to log for a few days to see what gets created before putting any effort in to this approach
There seems to be no way to tell lambdas to pull records in a scheduled manner.
This means that my lambda function never gets invoked unless the size of records meets the batch specification.
I'd like to my lambda function to get invoked eagerly so that it can pull records after a specified time elapses as well.
Imagine that you are building a real time analytics service that do not fill the specified batch size for a long time during off-peaks.
Is there any workaround to pull records periodically?
This means that my lambda function never gets invoked unless the size of records meets the batch specification.
That is not correct to my knowledge - can you provide the documentation that says so?
To my knowledge
AWS uses a daemon for polling the stream and check for new records. The daemon is what triggers the Lambda and it happens in one of the two cases:
Batch size crossed the specified limit (the one configured in Lambda).
Certain time had passed (don't know how much exactly) and current batch is not empty.
I had done a massive use of Kinesis and Lambda, I have configured the batch limit to 500 records (per invocation).
I have had invocations with less than 500 records, sometimes even ~20 records - this is a fact.