I've started working with RabbitMQ and my use case is quite simple - producers putting messages on queues to to processed by consumers. Each message is processed by at most one consumer and messages are directed from producer to consumer based on queue name.
Direct exchanges seem perfectly fine for this and the default exchange is a direct exchange.
Are there any reasons (performance, management, permissioning etc.) to not use the default exchange and create your own one instead? For example, I will be using high-availability queues (https://www.rabbitmq.com/ha.html) and wasn't sure if there would be any negative impact on the cluster if all the HA queues were on the default exchange as opposed to a different exchange?
With the default exchange you gain performance, since there's almost no routing logic involved, but then you end up coupling your publishers to your consumers, which is kinda an anti-pattern in messaging.
At the same time if your concern is performance, I doubt RabbitMQ's routing performance would be the first problem you encounter. Queue paging, queue synchronization over a network in the case of HA, and so on, seems like things I would worry about when caring for performance.
Related
I have an exchange that's going to receive roughly 50 messages per second. These messages have a unique identifier which relates to each unit in the field. This unique identifier will be the routing key. Every now and again we need to debug or analyse a unit. At that point in time we will spin up a queue, with the correct routing key, and bind it to the exchange. This way, that queue will start receiving the messages for that unit and any consumers monitoring that queue, will then receive the messages.
What this does mean is that 99% of the time, the exchange will have no queues and no routing key. Then, every now and again a queue and routing key will be created and subscribe.
It feels kind of wasteful to be sending 50 messages per second at an exchange, when its just going to immediately discard them. That said, it feels like this how RabbitMQ exchanges are supposed to be used. I guess from a developer perspective i feel like this is wasteful but I also think my understanding of rabbit says that this is the correct way to do.
Is there any overhead to doing this? Any performance concerns I should have? or maybe I am approaching this entirely wrong?
I did try to search before asking but nothing really describes a scenario where an exchange has no queue or routing key, but is still receiving messages.
This is basically how RabbitMQ works, as you have described. The broker is not responsible for how often and how many events you decide to publish. It will nonetheless protect from too much pressure. It has a credit based flow control mechanism. RabbitMQ flow control.
RabbitMQ has different ways in which unroutable messages can be handled.Unroutable Message Handling How to deal with unroutable messages
To sum up a bit the information you will find on those links:
If the publisher does not set the message as mandatory, it will either be discarded or republished to a different alternate exchange that you can configure. This only makes sense if you want to persist all unroutable messages regardless of the source in a single queue, that you can handle later.
If the publisher sets the message as mandatory, the message will be returned to the publisher and the publisher can have a returned message handler setup in order to handle those events.
These strategies in addition to the flow control mechanism, also assure RabbitMQ reliability and protection.
In your situation if you want to limit the messages from producer even more, you need to create a mechanism, as an example, so the producer will not start publishing only when a consumer becomes active. So basically the consumer process will communicate the producer process that it is active and it can start publishing. But from my experience I don't think it's worth the overhead, at least at first, because 50 messages per seconds isn't much. You can monitor the RabbitMQ server and check how is the resource consumption to check if you need to optimize, at first. Optimization is best done with metrics and understanding.
Let's consider a system where thousands of clients data is published to a RabbitMQ exchange (client_id is known at this stage). Exchange routes them to a single queue. Finally, messages are consumed by a single application. Works great.
However, over time, the consuming application becomes a bottleneck and needs to be scaled horizontally. The problem is the system requires that messages considering particular client are consumed by the same instance of the application.
I can create lots of queues: either one per client or use a topic exchange and route it based on some client_id prefix. Still, I don't see an elegant way how to design the consumer application so that it can be scaled horizontally (as it requires stating queues that it consumes explicitly).
I'm looking for RabbitMQ way for solving this problem.
RabbitMQ has x-consistent-hash and x-modulus-hash exchanges that can be used to solve the problem. When these exchanges are used, messages get partitioned to different queues according to hash values of routing keys. Of course, there are differences between x-consistent-hash and x-modulus-hash in the way how partitioning is implemented, but main idea stays the same - messages with the same routing key (client_id) will be distributed to the same queue and eventually should be consumed by the same application.
For example, the system can have the following topology: every application can define an exclusive queue (used by only one connection and the queue will be deleted when that connection closes) that is binded to the exchange (x-consistent-hash or x-modulus-hash).
In my opinion, it is a good idea to have a distributed cache layer in this particular scenario, but RabbitMQ provides the plugins to tackle this kind of problems.
So we decided to go with RabbitMQ as a message/event bus in our migration to micro-services architecture, but we couldn't find a definite answer on what is the best way of putting our queues, we have two options to go with:
One main exchange which will be a Fanout exchange, which in turn will fan messages out to a main queue for logging and other purposes and another sub exchange which will be a topic exchange and route the messages to each desired queue using the message routing key. We expect the number of queues behind the sub-exchange to be some how a large number. This can be explained by this graph:
One main exchange, which will be a Topic exchange, with still one main queue bound to that exchange using "#" routing key. That main exchange will also handles main routing to other sub exchanges, so routing keys might be "agreements.#", "assignments.#", "messages.#", which are then used to bind multiple topic sub-exchanges, each will handle sub routing, so one sub exchange might be handling all "assignments" and queues bound to that exchange could be bound by routing keys like "assignments.accepted", "assignments.deleted"...In this scenario, we feel like the huge number of queues will be less per exchange, they will be somehow distributed between exchanges.
So, which of these scenarios could be the best approach? Faster on RabbitMQ, less overhead.
Taking in mind, all queues, exchanges and bindings will be done on the fly from the service which will be either publishing or subscribing.
You can find some explanation in this topic: RabbitMQ Topic exchanges: 1 Exchange vs Many Exchanges
I am using RabbitMQ in a very similar way that you showed in the case 2, as I found the same benefits as described in this article: https://skillachie.com/2014/06/27/rabbitmq-exchange-to-exchange-bindings-ampq/
Exchange-to-exchange bindings are much more flexible in terms of the topology that you can design, promotes decoupling & reduce binding churn
Exchange-to-exchange bindings are said to be very light weight and as a result help to increase performance *
Based in my own experience with exchange-to-exchange, the case 2 is great and it will allows to create/change messages flow topologies in a very fast way.
I'm going to first re-summarize what I think is your question, since I'm sure it's buried somewhere in your post.
It is desirable to have a tracer/logging queue, in addition to a series of work-specific queues for actual message processing. What exchange topology is best for this scenario?
First off, neither option makes much sense given your application. Option 1 will create an exchange that will publish a message to every queue bound to it, regardless. This is clearly not what you want. Option 2 will give you a rather complex routing topology for which the benefit is unclear, and the drawback is painful maintenance and a steep learning curve. (Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it.)
What should be done?
It is important to remember that in RabbitMQ, it is the queues which consume the resources of the broker. Exchanges merely connect queues with publishers. The exchange is a means to an end, while the queue is the end itself.
What instead I think you should do is set up a single topic exchange. Bind your tracing queue to routing key # so that you receive all messages. Then, bind your work queues appropriately so that they receive only the messages that need to flow into them. For example, it is common to route messages by message type, where each queue holds exactly one type of message. This is both simple and effective.
The advantage of a single topic exchange is that you get the benefits of both a Direct Exchange and a Fanout Exchange depending on the binding key used. Further, configuration changes are easy to achieve and can often be done without disrupting any system processing at all (let's say that you want to stop tracing certain messages - this can be done with ease using a topic exchange, assuming your routing keys are rational).
Exchange-to-exchange bindings is semantically identical to exchange-to-queue bindings.
https://www.rabbitmq.com/e2e.html
I have a Topic exchange from which I'd like to distribute messages to two queues on two servers part of a cluster, in order to reduce memory pressure on any particular server. My consumers are periodically slow, and I sometimes run into the high memory watermark.
The way I tried to resolve this is by routing messages using an intermediate direct exchange, with two queues bound to the exchange:
a (topic) -> a1 (direct) -> q1/q2 (bound to routing key "a")
But the messages were routed to both queues, as AMQP intends. Anyone has ideas? What I need is an exchange that routes to one and only one queue, even if the routing key matches many queues. I'd prefer not to change my routing keys, but that could be arranged.
I found Selective routing with RabbitMQ, which may mean I'll need to implement my own routing logic. Hopefully, this already exists somewhere else.
You could perhaps use the Shovel plugin - http://www.rabbitmq.com/shovel.html - to move messages from your intermediate exchange to the two queues.
If you set up two shovels, both consuming from a single queue on the direct intermediate exchange, they should be able to fight over the messages coming in (I'm assuming that you don't care too much if the two recipient queues don't get the incoming messages in a strict round robin fashion). The shovels then each publish to one of the two end queues, and can send through the ACKs from the end consumer.
Pretty new to RabbitMQ and we're still in the investigation stage to see if it's a good fit for our use cases--
We've readily come to the conclusion that our desired topology would have us deploying a few topic based exchanges, and then filtering from there to specific queues. For example, let's say we have a user and an upload exchange, where the user queue might receive messages where the topic is "new-registration" or "friend-request" and the upload exchange might receive messages like "video-upload" or "picture-upload".
Creating the queues, getting them routed to the appropriate queue, and then building listeners to handle the messages for the various queues has been quite straight forward.
What's unclear to me however is if it's possible to do a fanout on a topic exchange?
I.e. I have named queues that are bound to my topic exchange, but I'd like to be able to just throw tons of instances of my listeners at those queues to prevent single points of failure. But to the best of my knowledge, RabbitMQ treats these listeners in a straight forward round robin fashion--e.g. every Nth message always go to the same Nth listener rather than dispatching messages to the first available consumer. This is generally acceptable to us but given the load we anticipate, we'd like to avoid the possibility of hot spots developing amongst our consumer farm.
So, is there some way, either in the queue or exchange configuration or in the consumer code, where we can point our listeners to a topic queue but have the listeners treated in a fanout fashion?
Yes, by having the listeners bind using different queue names, they will be treated in a fanout fashion.
Fanout is 1:N though, i.e. each task can be delivered to multiple listeners like pub-sub. Note that this isn't restricted to a fanout exchange, but also applies if you bind multiple queues to a direct or topic exchange with the same binding key. (Installing the management plugin and looking at the exchanges there may be useful to visualize the bindings in effect.)
Your current setup is a task queue. Each task/message is delivered to exactly one worker/listener. Throw more listeners at the same queue name, and they will process the tasks round-robin as you say. With "fanout" (separate queues for a topic) you will process a task multiple times.
Depending on your platform there may be existing work queue solutions that meet your requirements, such as Resque or DelayedJob for Ruby, Celery for Python or perhaps Octobot or Akka for the JVM.
I don't know for a fact, but I strongly suspect that RabbitMQ will skip consumers with unacknowledged messages, so it should never bottleneck on a single stuck consumer. The comments on their FAQ seem to suggest that RabbitMQ will make an effort to keep things chugging along even in the presence of troublesome consumers.
This is a late answer, but in case others come across this question...
It sounds like what you want is fair dispatch rather than a fan out model (which would publish a given message to every queue).
Fair dispatch will give a message to the next available worker rather than using a simple round-robin approach. This should avoid the "hotspots" you are concerned about, without delivering the same message to multiple consumers.
If this is what you are looking for, then see the "Fair Dispatch" section on this page in the Rabbit docs. A prefetch count of 1 is the key here.