Our queues are automatically created when calling mqServer.CreateMessageQueueClient().Publish(). Recently we had an issue with a RabbitMq server going down and since ServiceStack does not create the outq as durable, the queue data was lost. Is there a way to change the queue to durable? I believe this has to be done in ServiceStack since that's where the queues are created.
Perhaps I'm approaching the issue from the wrong direction.
The .OutQ is registered as a non-durable topic, it's only meant for alerting connected consumers each time a Service with no Response has been executed.
The .OutQ Topic is designed to be transient and only used for notification purposes to signal that a request has been processed, it's not meant to be relied on as a durable queue for persisting all Request DTO's processed.
If your Service instead returns a Response DTO the Response DTO would then be persisted in the durable Response.inq queue.
Related
Requirement
A system undergoes some state change, and multiple other parts of the system has to know this(lets call them observers) so that they can perform some actions based on the current state, the actions of the observers are important, if some of the observers are not online(not listening currently due to some trouble, but will be back soon), the message should not be discarded till all the observers gets the message.
Trying to accomplish this with pub/sub model, here are my findings, (please correct if this understanding is wrong) -
The publisher creates an event on specific topic, and multiple subscribers can consume the same message. This model either provides no delivery guarantee(in redis), or delivery is guaranteed once(with messaging queues), ie. when one of the consumer acknowledges a message, the message is discarded(rabbitmq).
Example
A new Person Profile entity gets created in DB
Now,
A background verification service has to know this to trigger the verification process.
Subscriptions service has to know this to add default subscriptions to the user.
Now both the tasks are important, unrelated and can run in parallel.
Now In Queue model, if subscription service is down for some reason, a BG verification process acknowledges the message, the message will be removed from the queue, or if it is fire and forget like most of pub/sub, the delivery is anyhow not guaranteed for both the services.
One more point is both the tasks are unrelated and need not be triggered one after other.
In short, my need is to make sure all the consumers gets the same message and they should be able to acknowledge them individually, the message should be evicted only after all the consumers acknowledged it either of the above approaches doesn't do this.
Anything I am missing here ? How should I approach this problem ?
This scenario is explicitly supported by RabbitMQ's model, which separates "exchanges" from "queues":
A publisher always sends a message to an "exchange", which is just a stateless routing address; it doesn't need to know what queue(s) the message should end up in
A consumer always reads messages from a "queue", which contains its own copy of messages, regardless of where they originated
Multiple consumers can subscribe to the same queue, and each message will be delivered to exactly one consumer
Crucially, an exchange can route the same message to multiple queues, and each will receive a copy of the message
The key thing to understand here is that while we talk about consumers "subscribing" to a queue, the "subscription" part of a "pub-sub" setup is actually the routing from the exchange to the queue.
So a RabbitMQ pub-sub system might look like this:
A new Person Profile entity gets created in DB
This event is published as a message to an "events" topic exchange with a routing key of "entity.profile.created"
The exchange routes copies of the message to multiple queues:
A "verification_service" queue has been bound to this exchange to receive a copy of all messages matching "entity.profile.#"
A "subscription_setup_service" queue has been bound to this exchange to receive a copy of all messages matching "entity.profile.created"
The consuming scripts don't know anything about this routing, they just know that messages will appear in the queue for events that are relevant to them:
The verification service picks up the copy of the message on the "verification_service" queue, processes, and acknowledges it
The subscription setup service picks up the copy of the message on the "subscription_setup_service" queue, processes, and acknowledges it
If there are multiple consuming scripts looking at the same queue, they'll share the messages on that queue between them, but still completely independent of any other queue.
Here's a screenshot from this interactive visualisation tool that shows this scenario:
As you mentioned it is not something that you can control with Redis Pub/Sub data structure.
But you can do it easily with Redis Streams.
Streams will allow you to post messages using the XADD command and then control which consumers are dealing with the message and acknowledge that message has been processed.
You can look at these sample application that provides (in Java) example about:
posting and consuming messages
create multiple consumer groups
manage exceptions
Links:
Getting Started with Redis Streams and Java
Redis Streams in Action ( Project that shows how to use ADD/ACK/PENDING/CLAIM and build an error proof streaming application with Redis Streams and SpringData )
I am integrating several .Net modules using pub/sub messaging using RabbitMQ and MassTransit. Most of the message subscription shall be durable. But some shall be transient. When a consumer dies the messages shall not be stored and already queued messages shall be discarded.
In each module I create 1 bus with 2 receive endpoints. One is configured as durable and non-auto-delete. The other one is configured as non-durable and auto-delete. Each gets its own set of consumers. This works as expected.
Now I am trying to implement request/response messages. Here comes the problem because now the sender has to decide to which exchange to route to. And that is wrong as I want receiver to decide whether to use durable or transient queue.
My questions:
Is there a better way how to support durable and transient subscription at the same time?
Why is MassTransit binding message exchange to an endpoint exchange that is bound to an endpoint queue? Why cannot the message exchange be directly bound to the endpoint queue?
Lets assume that all request consumers in one module are either durable or transient. Is it possible to declare one "module"-exchange which is then bound to either durable or transient queue? So the sender addresses the module exchange and module decides to which queue to bind. How to convince MassTransit to do so?
A module is using durable subscriptions that survive through restarts of module and also broker. After some time, admin (so in run-time of the system) decides to disconnect this module from the system. Can the module somehow unsubscribe everything and let MassTransit to remove the durable exchanges and queues?
Your question starts with request/response sent to an unknown endpoint, and ends with removing exchanges. These are different things, I suppose.
I cannot answer point-by-point, just will try to clear up things.
Request/response by definition requires you to know where you send stuff. As per MassTransit convention, the endpoint address is always an exchange/queue pair address. Therefore, you cannot let receiver decide who will handle this message, it will be delivered to the exchange/queue of the endpoint where you send it to.
About the "unsubscribe" - MassTransit deletes nothing. You have to clean up the binding that is not being used manually or by using the management API.
In discussing the differences between Kafka and RabbitMQ, "dumb broker" and "smart broker" keeps popping up in their interactions with consumers. Kafka is described as having a dumb broker while RabbitMQ is said to have a smart broker/dumb consumer model.
What exactly does this mean? I'm familiar with the basics of Kafka and a little bit more about RabbitMQ. However, what features of RabbitMQ makes the broker smarter than Kafka's?
This is a question that bothered me for sometime too :) Here's what I have understood so far...
In the case of RabbitMQ the broker makes sure the messages are delivered to the consumers and dequeue them only when it gets acknowledgement from all the consumers that need that message. It also keeps track of consumer state.
Kafka does not keep track of "which messages were read by consumers". The Kafka broker keeps all messages in queues for a fixed duration of time and it's the responsibility of the consumer to read it from the queue. It also does not have this overhead operation of keeping track of consumer state.
You can read more about it in this awesome Pivotal blog post comparing RabbitMQ and Kafka.
The point about Kafka using a dumb broker while Rabbit MQ using a smart broker is one of the points used while deciding which Messaging System to use. Since RabbitMQ is a smart broker implementing global startegies for retry is far easier and listener agnostic than in Kafka.
Given a set of microservices accessed through an API gateway I believe that the above point, combined with the advantages of Rabbit MQ being much more maintainable and the knowledge that the data passed across microservices will never amount to the same load as that of streaming data, makes Rabbit MQ a far better choice than Kafka for Inter Service Communication
Dumb vs Smart broker means that the Broker can be smart to route messages based on certain conditions.
In the case of RabbitMQ, producer sends message to Exchange and Exchange routes the message to Queue. Here "Exchange" does the routing and thats what they call as Smart broker. Again people have made Brokers really smart and ended up with ESB which we all know what happened and Industry is moving away from Bloated ESB's.
In the case of Kafka, broker doesn't route messages. It is up to the user to create topics, producers partition the events into topic-partitions, and consumer groups and decide which consumer groups listens to which topic.
Smart vs Dumb broker has nothing to do with Message acknowledgment. In case of RabbitMQ, it tracks the status of each message to see whether it is consumer or not. In the case of Kafka, it happens but differently by using offsets on partitions and offset is stored in Kafka itself ( consumer can also store). But both provide the functionality.
I'm trying to setup RabbitMQ in a model where there is only one producer and one consumer, and where messages sent by the producer are delivered to the consumer only if the consumer is connected, but dropped if the consumer is not present.
Basically I want the queue to drop all the messages it receives when no consumer is connected to it.
An additional constraint is that the queue must be declared on the RabbitMQ server side, and must not be explicitly created by the consumer or the producer.
Is that possible?
I've looked at a few things, but I can't seem to make it work:
durable vs non-durable does not work, because it is only useful when the broker restarts. I need the same effect but on a connection.
setting auto_delete to true on the queue means that my client can never connect to this queue again.
x-message-ttl and max-length make it possible to lose message even when there is a consumer connected.
I've looked at topic exchanges, but as far as I can tell, these only affect the routing of messages between the exchange and the queue based on the message content, and can't take into account whether or not a queue has connected consumers.
The effect that I'm looking for would be something like auto_delete on disconnect, and auto_create on connect. Is there a mechanism in rabbitmq that lets me do that?
After a bit more research, I discovered that one of the assumptions in my question regarding x-message-ttl was wrong. I overlooked a single sentence from the RabbitMQ documentation:
Setting the TTL to 0 causes messages to be expired upon reaching a queue unless they can be delivered to a consumer immediately
https://www.rabbitmq.com/ttl.html
It turns out that the simplest solution is to set x-message-ttl to 0 on my queue.
You can not doing it directly, but there is a mechanism not dificult to implement.
You have to enable the Event Exchange Plugin. This is a exchange at which your server app can connect and will receive internal events of RabbitMQ. You would be interested in the consumer.created and consumer.deleted events.
When these events are received you can trigger an action (create or delete the queue you need). More information here: https://www.rabbitmq.com/event-exchange.html
Hope this helps.
If your consumer is allowed to dynamically bind / unbind a queue during start/stop on the broker it should be possible by that way (e.g. queue is pre setup and the consumer binds the queue during startup to an exchange it wants to receive messages from)
Just started learning NServiceBus and trying to understand the concept.
When it talks about queues, are we talking about MSMQs on both publisher and subscriber?
So, if I have an application that generates a list of something (say, name of animals), then it dumps the list into publisher’s queue. The publisher polls the queue every minute and if there is something in the queue, it will publish to subscriber’s queue for further processing. Does this make sense?
Thanks.
The sequence of events for a publish is as follows:
The Publisher will start up(Windows Service)
A Subscriber will start up and place a message into the Publisher's input queue(MSMQ)
The Publisher will take that message, read the address of the Subscriber and place that into storage(subscription storage: memory, MSMQ, or RDBMS)
When it is time to publish and event, the Publisher will inspect the type of message and then read subscription storage to find Subscribers interested in that message
The Publisher will then send a message to each of the Subscribers found in subscription storage
The Subscriber receives the message in its input queue(MSMQ) and processes it
You can leverage other messaging platforms instead of MSMQ, but MSMQ is the default. There really is no polling done, all the endpoints are signaled when a message hits the queues.
MSMQ is a transport layer. It passes the messages around.
The application will publish something using a NServiceBus queue. If you configured it to use MSMQ, that's what it will use for its transport layer and this is what the subscribers will be looking at.
NServiceBus follows the publisher/subscriber model as you have correctly stated. However your confusion is based on the use of two queues. This is incorrect. The server (publisher) will maintain the queue which is interfaced via the MSMQ protocol and so your application would communicate directly with this possibly remotely or locally.
You would typically use a WCF service which would raise an event upon a new message being pushed onto the queue. Your application can then make use of this new message as desired. See the NServiceBus documentation for examples: http://www.nservicebus.com/ArchitecturalPrinciples.aspx