This is a new area for me so hopefully my question makes sense.
In my program I have a large number of clients which are windows services running on laptops - that are often disconnected. Occasionally they come on line and I want them to receive updates based on user profiles. There are many types of notifications that require the client to perform some work on the local application (i.e. the laptop).
I realize that I could do this with a series of restful database queries, but since there are so many clients (upwards to 10,000) and there are lots of different notification types, I was curious if perhaps this was not a problem better suited for a messaging product like RabbitMQ or even 0MQ.
But how would one set this up. (let's assume in RabbitMQ?
Would each user be assigned their own queue?
Or is it preferable to have each queue be a distinct notification type and you would use some combination of direct exchanges or filtering messages based on a routing key, where the routing key could be a username.
Since each user may potentially have a different set of notifications based on their user profile, I am thinking that each client/consumer would have a specific message for each notification sitting on a queue waiting for them to come online and process it.
Is this the right way of thinking about the problem? Thanks in advance.
It will be easier for you to balance a lot of queues than filter long ones, so it's better to use queue per consumer.
Messages can have arbitrary headers and body so it is the right place for notification types.
Since you will be using long-living queues, waiting for consumers on disk - you better use lazy queues https://www.rabbitmq.com/lazy-queues.html (it's available since version 3.6.0)
Related
We are building spark based jobs. Processing each message delivered by the queue takes time. There is a need to be able to reprioritize one already sent to the queue.
I am aware there is priority queue implementation available, but not sure how to re-prioritize the existing message in the queue?
One bad workaround is to push that message again as higher priority, so that it handled on priority. Later drop the message with same content which had low or no priority when it's turns comes next.
Is there a natural way we can handle this situation or any other queues that supports scenario better?
Unfortunately there isn't. Queues are to be considered as lists of messages in flight. It is not possible to delete/update them.
Your approach of submitting a higher priority message is the only feasible solution.
RabbitMQ is a messaging system (such as the postal one), it is not a DataBase or a storage service. The storage in form of queues is a necessary feature as much as the postal service needs storage for postcards in transit. It is optimized for the purpose and does not allow to access the messages easily.
I have a question about multi consumer concurrency.
I want to send works to rabbitmq that comes from web request to distributed queues.
I just want to be sure about order of works in multiple queues (FIFO).
Because this request comes from different users eech user requests/works must be ordered.
I have found this feature with different names on Azure ServiceBus and ActiveMQ message grouping.
Is there any way to do this in pretty RabbitMQ ?
I want to quaranty that customer's requests must be ordered each other.
Each customer may have multiple requests but those requests for that customer must be processed in order.
I desire to process quickly incoming requests with using multiple consumer on different nodes.
For example different customers 1 to 1000 send requests over 1 millions.
If I put this huge request in only one queue it takes a lot of time to consume. So I want to share this process load between n (5) node. For customer X 's requests must be in same sequence for processing
When working with event-based systems, and especially when using multiple producers and/or consumers, it is important to come to terms with the fact that there usually is no such thing as a guaranteed order of events. And to get a robust system, it is also wise to design the system so the message handlers are idempotent; they should tolerate to get the same message twice (or more).
There are way to many things that may (and actually should be allowed to) interfere with the order;
The producers may deliver the messages in a slightly different pace
One producer might miss an ack (due to a missed package) and will resend the message
One consumer may get and process a message, but the ack is lost on the way back, so the message is delivered twice (to another consumer).
Some other service that your handlers depend on might be down, so that you have to reject the message.
That being said, there is one pattern that servicebus-systems like NServicebus use to enforce the order messages are consumed. There are some requirements:
You will need a centralized storage (like a sql-server or document store) that allows for conditional updates; for instance you want to be able to store the sequence number of the last processed message (or how far you have come in the process), but only if the already stored sequence/progress is the right/expected one. Storing the user-id and the progress even for millions of customers should be a very easy operation for most databases.
You make sure the queue is configured with a dead-letter-queue/exchange for retries, and then set your original queue as a dead-letter-queue for that one again.
You set a TTL (for instance 30 seconds) on the retry/dead-letter-queue. This way the messages that appear on the dead-letter-queue will automatically be pushed back to your original queue after some timeout.
When processing your messages you check your storage/database if you are in the right state to handle the message (i.e. the needed previous steps are already done).
If you are ok to handle it you do and update the storage (conditionally!).
If not - you nack the message, so that it is thrown on the dead-letter queue. Basically you are saying "nah - I can't handle this message, there are probably some other message in the queue that should be handled first".
This way the happy-path is to process a great number of messages in the right order.
But if something happens and a you get a message out of band, you will throw it on the retry-queue (the dead-letter-queue) and Rabbit will make sure it will get back in the queue to be retried at a later stage. But only after a delay.
The beauty of this is that you are able to handle most of the situations that may interfere with processing the message (out of order messages, dependent services being down, your handler being shut down in the middle of handling the message) in exact the same way; by rejecting the message and letting your infrastructure (Rabbit) take care of it being retried after a while.
(Assuming the OP is asking about things like ActiveMQs "message grouping:)
This isn't currently built in to RabbitMQ AFAIK (it wasn't as of 2013 as per this answer) and I'm not aware of it now (though I haven't kept up lately).
However, RabbitMQ's model of exchanges and queues is very flexible - exchanges and queues can be easily created dynamically (this can be done in other messaging systems but, for example, if you read ActiveMQ documentation or Red Hat AMQ documentation you'll find all of the examples in the user guides are using pre-declared queues in configuration files loaded at system startup - except for RPC-like request/response communication).
Also it is very easy in RabbitMQ for a consumer (i.e., message consuming thread) to consume from multiple queues.
So you could build, on top of RabbitMQ, a system where you got your desired grouping semantics.
One way would be to create dynamic queues: The first time a customer order was seen or a new group of customer orders a queue would be created with a unique name for all messages for that group - that queue name would be communicated (via another queue) to a consumer who's sole purpose was to load-balance among other consumers that were responsible for handling customer order groups. I.e., the load-balancer would pull off of its queue a message saying "new group with queue name XYZ" and it would find in a pool of order group consumer a consumer which could take this load and pass it a message saying "start listening to XYZ".
Another way to do it is with pub/sub and topic routing - each customer order group would get a unique topic - and proceed as above.
RabbitMQ Consistent Hash Exchange Type
We are using RabbitMQ and we have found a plugin. It use Consistent Hashing algorithm to distribute messages in order to consistent keys.
For more information about Consistent Hashing ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_hashing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaNG1zyx1g
You can find this plugin from rabbitmq web page
plugin : rabbitmq_consistent_hash_exchange
https://www.rabbitmq.com/plugins.html
I'm new to NServiceBus, but currently using it with SQL Server Transport to send messages between three machines: one belongs to an endpoint called Server, and two belong to an endpoint called Agent. This is working as expected, with messages sent to the Agent endpoint distributed to one of the two machines via the default round-robin.
I now want to add a new endpoint called PriorityAgent with a different queue and two additional machines. While all endpoints use the same message type, I know where each message should be handled prior to sending it, so normally I can just choose the correct destination endpoint and the message will be processed accordingly.
However, I need to build in a special case: if all machines on the PriorityAgent endpoint are currently down, messages that ordinarily should be sent there should be sent to the Agent endpoint instead, so they can be processed without delay. On the other hand, if all machines on the Agent endpoint are currently down, any Agent messages should not be sent to PriorityAgent, they can simply wait for an Agent machine to return.
I've been researching the proper way to implement this, and haven't seen many results. I imagine this isn't an unheard-of scenario, so my assumption is that I'm searching for the wrong things or thinking about this problem in the wrong way. Still, I came up with a couple potential solutions:
Separately track heartbeats of PriorityAgent machines, and add a mutator or behavior to change the destination of outgoing PriorityAgent messages to the Agent endpoint if those heartbeats stop.
Give PriorityAgent messages a short expiration, and somehow handle the expiration to redirect messages to the Agent endpoint. I'm not sure if this is actually possible.
Is one of these solutions on the right track, or am I off-base entirely?
You have not seen many do this because it's considered an antipattern. Or rather one of two antipatterns.
1) Either you are sending a command, in which case the RECEIVER of the command defines the contract. Why are you sending a command defined by PriorityAgent to Agent? There should be no coupling there. A command belongs to ONE logical endpoint/queue.
2) Or you are publishing an event defined by whoever publishes, with both PriorityAgent and Agent as subscribers. The two subscribers should be 100% autonomous and share nothing. Checking heartbeats/sharing info between these two logical separate entities is a bad thing. Why have them separately in the first place then? If they know about each other "dirty secrets," they should be the same thing.
If your primary concern is that the PriorityAgent messages will not be handled if the machines hosting it are down, and want to use the machines hosting Agent as a backup, simply deploy PriorityAgent there as well. One machine can run more than one endpoint just fine.
That way you can leverage the additional machines, but don't have to get dirty with sending the same command to a different logical endpoint or coupling two different logical endpoints together through some back channel.
I'm Dennis van der Stelt and I work for Particular Software, makers of NServiceBus.
From what I understand, both PriorityAgent and Agent are already scaled out over multiple machines? Then they both work according to competing consumers pattern. In other words, both machines try to pick up messages from the same queue, where only one will win and starts processing the message.
You're also talking about high availability. So when PriorityAgent goes down, another machine will pick it up. That's what I don't understand. Why fail over to Agent, which seems to me to be a logically different endpoint? If it is logically different, how can it handle PriorityAgent messages? If it can handle the same message, it seems logically the same endpoint. Then why make the difference between PriorityAgent and Agent?
Besides that, SQL Server has all kinds of features (like Always-On) to make sure it does not (completely) go down. Why try to solve difficult scenarios with custom build solutions, when SQL Server can already solve this for you?
Another scenario could be that PriorityAgent should handle priority cases. Something like preferred customers, or high-value customers. That is sometimes used when (for example) a lot of orders (read: messages) come in, but we want to deal with high-value customers sooner than regular customers. But due to the amount of messages coming in, high-value customers would also end up in the back of the queue, together with regular customers. A solution could be to publish these messages and have two different endpoints (with different queues) subscribed both to this message. Both receive each unique message, but check whether it's a message they should handle. The Agent will ignore high-value customers, the PriorityAgent will ignore regular customer.
These are some of the solutions available as standard messaging patterns, or infrastructural solutions to solving your issue. Again, it's not completely clear to me what it is you're looking for. If you'd like to continue the discussion; perhaps you want to email support#particular.net and we can continue the discussion there.
I'm working on a system which amongst other things, runs payroll, a heavy load process. It is likely that soon, there may be so many requests to run payroll at peak times that the batch servers will be overwhelmed.
I'm looking to put together a proof of concept to cope with this by using MSMQ (probably replacing this with a commercial solution like nservicebus later). I using this this example as a basis. I can see how to set up the bindings and stick it together, but I still need a way to tell the subscribers hosted by WAS to only process the 'run heavy payroll process' message if they are not busy. Otherwise the messages on the queue will get picked up straightaway and we have the same problem as before.
Can I set up the subscribing service to say, "I'm busy, I can't take the message, leave it on the queue"? Does the queue need to be transactional?
If you're using WCF then there's no way to conditionally activate the channel thereby leaving the messages on the queue for later.
A better solution is to host the message receiver in a completely different process, for example as a windows service. These can then be enabled/disabled according to your service window requirement.
You also get the additional benefit of being able to very easily scale out the message receivers to handle greater loads (by hosting more instances of your receiver).
One way to do this is to have 2 queues, your polling always checks the high priority queue first, only if there are no items in that queue does it take an item from the other
On my team at work, we use the IBM MQ technology a lot for cross-application communication. I've seen lately on Hacker News and other places about other MQ technologies like RabbitMQ. I have a basic understanding of what it is (a commonly checked area to put and get messages), but what I want to know what exactly is it good at? How will I know where I want to use it and when? Why not just stick with more rudimentary forms of interprocess messaging?
All the explanations so far are accurate and to the point - but might be missing something: one of the main benefits of message queueing: resilience.
Imagine this: you need to communicate with two or three other systems. A common approach these days will be web services which is fine if you need an answers right away.
However: web services can be down and not available - what do you do then? Putting your message into a message queue (which has a component on your machine/server, too) typically will work in this scenario - your message just doesn't get delivered and thus processed right now - but it will later on, when the other side of the service comes back online.
So in many cases, using message queues to connect disparate systems is a more reliable, more robust way of sending messages back and forth. It doesn't work well for everything (if you want to know the current stock price for MSFT, putting that request into a queue might not be the best of ideas) - but in lots of cases, like putting an order into your supplier's message queue, it works really well and can help ease some of the reliability issues with other technologies.
MQ stands for messaging queue.
It's an abstraction layer that allows multiple processes (likely on different machines) to communicate via various models (e.g., point-to-point, publish subscribe, etc.). Depending on the implementation, it can be configured for things like guaranteed reliability, error reporting, security, discovery, performance, etc.
You can do all this manually with sockets, but it's very difficult.
For example: Suppose you want to processes to communicate, but one of them can die in the middle and later get reconnected. How would you ensure that interim messages were not lost? MQ solutions can do that for you.
Message queueuing systems are supposed to give you several bonuses. Among most important ones are monitoring and transactional behavior.
Transactional design is important if you want to be immune to failures, such as power failure. Imagine that you want to notify a bank system of ATM money withdrawal, and it has to be done exactly once per request, no matter what servers failed temporarily in the middle. MQ systems would allow you to coordinate transactions across multiple database, MQ and other systems.
Needless to say, such systems are very slow compared to named pipes, TCP or other non-transactional tools. If high performance is required, you would not allow your messages to be written thru disk. Instead, it will complicate your design - to achieve exotic reliable AND fast communication, which pushes the designer into really non-trivial tricks.
MQ systems normally allow users to watch the queue contents, write plugins, clear queus, etc.
MQ simply stands for Message Queue.
You would use one when you need to reliably send a inter-process/cross-platform/cross-application message that isn't time dependent.
The Message Queue receives the message, places it in the proper queue, and waits for the application to retrieve the message when ready.
reference: web services can be down and not available - what do you do then?
As an extension to that; what if your local network and your local pc is down as well?? While you wait for the system to recover the dependent deployed systems elsewhere waiting for that data needs to see an alternative data stream.
Otherwise, that might not be good enough 'real time' response for today's and very soon in the future Internet of Things (IOT) requirements.
if you want true parallel, non volatile storage of various FIFO streams(at least at some point along the signal chain) use an FPGA and FRAM memory. FRAM runs at clock speed and FPGA devices can be reprogrammed on the fly adding and taking away however many independent parallel data streams are needed(within established constraints of course).