I'm looking at turning a monolith application into a microservice-oriented application and in doing so will need a robust messaging system for interprocesses-communication. The idea is for the microserviceprocesses to be run on a cluster of servers for HA, with requests to be processed to be added on a message queue that all the applications can access. I'm looking at using Redis as both a KV-store for transient data and also as a message broker using the ServiceStack framework for .Net but I worry that the concept of eventual consistency applied by Redis will make processing of the requests unreliable. This is how I understand Redis to function in regards to Mq:
Client 1 posts a request to a queue on node 1
Node 1 will inform all listeners on that queue using pub/sub of the existence of
the request and will also push the requests to node 2 asynchronously.
The listeners on node 1 will pull the request from the node, only 1 of them will obtain it as should be. An update of the removal of the request is sent to node 2 asynchronously but will take some time to arrive.
The initial request is received by node 2 (assuming a bit of a delay in RTT) which will go ahead and inform listeners connected to it using pub/sub. Before the update from node 1 is received regarding the removal of the request from the queue a listener on node 2 may also pull the request. The result being that two listeners ended up processing the same request, which would cause havoc in our system.
Is there anything in Redis or the implementation of ServiceStack Redis Mq that would prevent the scenario described to occur? Or is there something else regarding replication in Redis that I have misunderstood? Or should I abandon the Redis/SS approach for Mq and use something like RabbitMQ instead that I have understood to be ACID-compliant?
It's not possible for the same message to be processed twice in Redis MQ as the message worker pops the message off the Redis List backed MQ and all Redis operations are atomic so no other message worker will have access to the messages that have been removed from the List.
ServiceStack.Redis (which Redis MQ uses) only supports Redis Sentinel for HA which despite Redis supporting multiple replicas they only contain a read only view of the master dataset, so all write operations like List add/remove operations can only happen on the single master instance.
One notable difference from using Redis MQ instead of specific purpose MQ like Rabbit MQ is that Redis doesn't support ACK's, so if the message worker process that pops the message off the MQ crashes then it's message is lost, as opposed to Rabbit MQ where if the stateful connection of an un Ack'd message dies the message is restored by the RabbitMQ server back to the MQ.
Related
There are three nodes in a RabbitMQ cluster as below.
Within RabbitMQ, there are two queues, q1 and q2.
The master replica of q1 and q2 are distributed on different nodes. Both queues are mirrored by other nodes.
There is a load balancer in front of three nodes.
AMQP(node port 5672) and Management HTTP API(node port 15672) are exposed by load balancer.
When application establishes a connection through load balancer, it could reach a random RabbitMQ node behind. And this is invisible to application.
Question:
Is it ok for application to consume both queues in a single AMQP channel over a single connection no matter which RabbitMQ node it reaches?
It is ok for application to call management HTTP API no matter which RabbitMQ node its request hits?
When RabbitMQ is set up as a cluster and you have your queues mirrored across them, it doesn't matter to which node you are connected. Because the AMQP connection for a queue will be automatically routed to the node containing the master queue and this handled by RabbitMQ internally. So, if a request to publish or consume on queue q1 comes, it will be routed to Node #1.
Answers to your question.
It is not advisable to consume more than one queues in a single AMQP connection. Exception from one consuming process may cause the connection to close which will interrupt the other one.
It is ok for application to call management HTTP API no matter which RabbutMQ node its request hits. Once management plugin in a RabbitMQ cluster is enabled, all the nodes will accept the Management HTTP API requests.
Reference: https://www.rabbitmq.com/clustering.html
I am working on redis SMQ persistence. My questions here is, While publisher publishing the messages, consumer has stopped suddenly. When consumer connects again, is it possible to subscribe messages from where it has stopped?
No - Redis' Pub/Sub has no persistence, and once a message has been published, it is sent only to the connected subscribed clients. Afterwards, the message is gone forever.
With standard Pub/Sub you can use Lua scripts to persist your message. You need to check whether you have a listener on channel or not. If not then storing your message with channel key on redis . When the subscriber cames back it checks if there is anything for him based on channel key. Second option is to use Redis Stream. Check this gist.
Plz use 2 redis connections: 1 pubsub, second - LPOP/RPOP
I have rabbitMQ broker running on two nodes as a cluster. I have observed that if node, where queue have been created, goes down, then queue would not be available on other node. If I try to publish a message from other node it fails. Even if I remove the failed node from cluster(using forget cluster command) and try to publish message from other node, the behavior is same.
I dont want to enable mirroring of the queue for the simple reason that it would replicate the messages which would be additional load on inter-network.
Is there way available in rabbitMQ to achieve this?
The behaviour you are experiencing is the default behaviour of rabbitmq and its exactly what i supposed to happen.The node where you created the queue becomes the producer now and if this node goes down then any connection available to it or queues or exchanges associated with it will not work at all. There are two options to resolve this issue.
One option is that there is one separate queue for every node and any node that wants to listen to receive messages from a particular node can subscribe to that particular queue's exchange. This seems to be not a very good idea since you need to manage a lot of things for it.
Second option is to always declare a queue before you publish so if your queue is not available then a new queue would take its place and all the nodes subscribe to would be able to listen and any producer node will be able to post that queue. This option will resolve the problems of node getting down or node not available. from the docs
before sending we need to make sure the recipient queue exists. If we send a message to non-existing location, RabbitMQ will just drop the message. Let's create a hello queue to which the message will be delivered:
RabbitMQ lets you import and export definitions. Definitions are json files which contain all broker objects (queues, exchanges, bindings, users, virtual hosts, permissions and parameters). They do not include the messages of queues.
You can export definitions of the node who owns the queue and import them to the slave node of the cluster periodically. You have to enable the management plugin for this task.
More information here: https://www.rabbitmq.com/management.html#configuration
I have a 3 node cluster of Rabbitmq behind a HAproxy Load Balancer. When I shut down a node, Rabbitmq successfully switches the queue to the other nodes. However, I notice that Logstash stops pulling messages from the queue unless I restart it. Is this a problem with the way rabbitmq operates? i.e. it deactivates all active consumers. I am not sure if log stash has any retry capability. Anyone run into this issue?
Quoting rabbit mq documentation, page for clustering first
What is Replicated? All data/state required for the operation of a
RabbitMQ broker is replicated across all nodes. An exception to this
are message queues, which by default reside on one node, though they
are visible and reachable from all nodes.
and high availability
Clients that are consuming from a mirrored queue may wish to know that
the queue from which they have been consuming has failed over. When a
mirrored queue fails over, knowledge of which messages have been sent
to which consumer is lost, and therefore all unacknowledged messages
are redelivered with the redelivered flag set. Consumers may wish to
know this is going to happen.
If so, they can consume with the argument x-cancel-on-ha-failover set
to true. Their consuming will then be cancelled on failover and a
consumer cancellation notification sent. It is then the consumer's
responsibility to reissue basic.consume to start consuming again.
So, what does all this mean:
You have to mirror queues
The consumers should use manual ACK
The consumers should reconnect on their own
So the answer to your question is no, it's not a problem with rabbitmq, that's simply how it works. It's up to clients to reconnect.
All,
I'm looking for advice over the following scenario:
I have a component running in one part of the corporate network that sends messages to an application logic component for processing. These components might reside on the same server, different servers in the same network (LAN ot WAN) or live outside in the cloud. The application server should be scalable and resilient.
The messages are related in that the sequence they arrive is important. They are time-stamped with the client timestamp.
My thinking is that I'll get the clients to use WCF basicHttpBinding (some are based on .NET CF which only has basic) to send messages to the Application Server (this is because we can guarantee port 80/443 will be open for outgoing connections). Server accepts these, and writes these into a queue. This queue can be scaled out if needed over multiple machines.
I'm hesitant to use MSMQ for the queue though as to properly scale out we are going to have to install seperate private queues on each application server and round-robin monitor the queues. I'm concerned though that we could lose a message on a server that's gone down until the server is restored, and we could end up processing a later message from a different server and disrupt the sequence.
What I'd prefer is a central queue (e.g. a database table) that all application servers monitor.
With this in mind, what I'd like to do is to create a custom WCF binding, similar to netMsmqBinding, but that uses the DB table instead but I'm confused as to whether I can simply create a custom transport or a I need a full binding, and whether the binding will allow the client to send over HTTP. I've looked around the internet but I'm a little confused as to where to start.
I could not bother with the custom WCF binding but it seems a good way to introduce scalability if I do need to seperate the servers.
Any suggestions please would be helpful, including alternatives.
Many thanks
I would start with MSMQ because it is exactly for this purpouse. Use single transactional queue on clustered machine and let application servers to take messages for processing from this queue. Each message processing has to be part of distributed transaction (MSDTC).
This scenario will ensure:
clustered queue host will ensure that if one cluster node fails the other will still be able to handle requests
sending each message as recoverable - it means that message will be persisted on hard drive (not only in memory) so in critical failure of the whole cluster you will still have all messages.
transactional queue will ensure that all message transport operations will be atomic - moving message from outgoing queue to destination queue will be processed as transaction. It means that original message from outgoing queue will be kept in queue until ack from destination queue arrives. Transactional processing can ensure in order delivery.
Distributed transaction will allow application servers consuming messages in transaction. Message will not be deleted from queue until application server commits transaction or transaction time outs.
MSMQ is also available on .NET CF so you can send messages directly to queue without intermediate non-reliable web service layer.
It should be possible to configure MSMQ over HTTP (but I have never used it so I'm not sure how it cooperates with previous mentioned features).
Your proposed solution will be pretty hard. You will end up in building BizTalk's MessageBox. But if you really want to do it, check Omar's post about building database queue table.