When using RabbitMQ as Message Broker, I have a scenario where multiple concurrent consumers pull messages from a Queue using the basic.get AMQP method and use explicit acknowledgement for deleting the message from the Queue. Assuming the following setup
Q has messages M1, M2, M3 and has consumers C1, C2 and C3 (each having its own connection and channel) connected to it.
How is concurrency handled in the basic.get method? Is the call to basic.get method synchronized to handle concurrent consumers each using its own connection and channel? C1, C2 and C3 issue a basic.get call to receive a message at the same time (assume the server receives all 3 requests simultaneously).
C1 requests a message using basic.get and gets M1. When C2 requests for a message, since its using a different connection, does it get M1 again?
How can consumers pull messages in batches of a predefined size?
Your questions really hit at the heart of queuing and process theory, so I will answer from that standpoint (RabbitMQ is really a generic message broker as far as my answers are concerned, as this applies to any message broker).
How is concurrency handled in the basic.get method? Is the call to
basic.get method synchronized to handle concurrent consumers each
using its own connection and channel? C1, C2 and C3 issue a basic.get
call to receive a message at the same time (assume the server receives
all 3 requests simultaneously).
Answer 1: RabbitMQ is designed to be a reliable message broker. It contains internal processes and controls to ensure that the same message does not get passed out multiple times to different consumers. Now, due to the impracticality of testing the scenario that you describe, does it work perfectly? Who knows. That is why properly-designed applications using message-based architecture will use idempotent transactions, such that if the same transaction is processed multiple times, the result will be the same as if the transaction was processed once.
Takeaway: Design your application so that the answer to this question is unimportant.
C1 requests a message using basic.get and gets M1. When C2 requests
for a message, since its using a different connection, does it get M1
again?
Answer 2: No. Subject to the assumptions of my previous answer, the RabbitMQ broker will not serve the same message back once it has been delivered. Depending on the settings of the channel and queue, the message may be automatically acknowledged upon delivery and will never be redelivered. Other settings will have the message requeue automatically upon the "death" of the processing thread/channel or a negative acknowledgment from your processing thread. This is important functionality, since a "poison" message could repeatedly wreak havoc in your application if it could be served up to multiple consumers. Takeaway: you may safely rely on this assumption in designing your application.
How can consumers pull messages in batches of a predefined size?
Answer: They can't, nor would it make sense for them to. In any queuing system, the fundamental assumption is that items are removed from the queue in single file. Attempts to violate this assumption result in unpredictable behavior; furthermore, single-piece flow is commonly the most efficient method of processing. However, in the real world, there are cases where batch sizes > 1 are necessary. In such cases, it makes sense to load the batch into its own single message, so this may require a separate processing thread that pulls messages from the queue and batches them together, or put them in batches initially. Keep in mind that once you have multiple consumers, there is no possible way to guarantee single messages will be processed in order. Takeaway: Batching should be avoided wherever possible, but where it is not practical to avoid, you may not assume that batches will contain individual messages in any particular order.
You might wanna read the RabbitMQ Api guide and the introduction to Amqp.
First of all, avoid consuming messages using basicGet in your consumers. Rather use the Consumer interface basicConsume. This allows RabbitMq to push you messages as they arrive on the queue. Everything else is a waist of resources here as it boils down to busy polling.
When using basicConsume RabbitMq will even push you more messages in the background up to a certain prefetch count. This allows you to process multiple messages concurrently as well as minimizing the time you need to wait for your next message to process (if some message is available).
Concurrency is not an issue at all, that's what you're using a queue for!
When having multiple consumers on one queue, a message will always only be delivered to one consumer (as long as the message is ACKed). Otherwise you need private queues for each consumer and route your messages accordingly.
Btw, if you're able to share the connection among your consumers, you should do so.
Just make sure to use one channel per thread.
There is no special configuration required for that scenario. Each client will atomically fetch and receive one message from the queue, just as you would like to happen.
Related
I have a Java application which publishes events to RabbitMQ. It has one very important characteristic: message order must be preserved at all times. The consumer can handle duplicates, but it cannot handle when message 2 is enqueued before message 1, so to say.
I have been reading a lot about RabbitMQ lately, and I feel there is only solution to do this: set the channel in confirm mode (https://www.rabbitmq.com/confirms.html - basically, it forces the broker to acknowledge the publication) and publish one by one. With one by one I mean that the message 2 is only published after RabbitMQ confirmed (via an asynchronous ACK response) that message 1 is actually well received and persisted.
I tried this in a conceptual implementation, and while this works fine, it's uber slow, without exaggerating. Which makes sense: after all, we are now limiting our message rate to 1 message at a time.
So this leads me to my question: are there other, more performant, ways to ensure that message ordering is always preserved (either in RabbitMQ or via different approaches)?
Although my concern is RabbitMQ, I believe this question might be applied to any kind of asynchronous message queue service.
RabbitMQ's clients enqueue in the same order that you sent. It's when subscribers go down, you get network splits or the subscriber NACKs messages that they can get re-ordered; and even then RMQ tries to keep them in the same approximate order by re-queueing at the same position, or as close to the same position.
You can do it like you suggest; take one message at a time, because if you take a message, but crash before you've ACKed it from the broker, it will pop up when your service comes back up, at the same position.
This assumes you only have a single service instance at any given time, consuming from the queue. Which in turn is a distributed systems problem on its own, if you have a scheduler like Kubernetes or Mesos, spawning your service instances.
Another solution would be to ensure ordering of processing in the receiving service, by "resequencing" the messages based on their logical timestamps/sequence numbers.
I've written a much more thorough guide as annotated code here https://github.com/haf/rmq-publisher-confirms-hopac/blob/master/src/Server/Shared/RabbitMQ.fs — with batching you can resequence. Furthermore, if your idempotence builds the consecutive sequence numbers into its logic, you can start taking batches and each event will be idempotent, despite being re-consumed.
Similar to this question, we have FIFO queues and the messages must be processed in order. We want competing consumers from different machines for redundancy and performance reasons, but only one consumer on one machine should handle a message for a given queue at a time.
I tried setting the prefetch count to 1, but I believe this will only work if used with a single machine. Is this possible by default with RabbitMQ or do we need to implement our own lock?
Given a single queue with multiple consumers there is no way to block one of the consumers, all of them receive the messages in round-robin fashion.
EDIT
See https://www.rabbitmq.com/consumers.html#single-active-consumer
/EDIT
You could see this plugin, https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-consistent-hash-exchange to distribute the load using different queues.
I tried setting the prefetch count to 1
prefetch=1 means that the consumers take one message at a time.
do we need to implement our own lock
Yes, If you want one single consumer for queue avoiding other consumers.
EDIT
There are also the Exclusive Queues https://www.rabbitmq.com/queues.html#exclusive-queues but note:
Exclusive queues are deleted when their declaring connection is closed or gone (e.g. due to underlying TCP connection loss). They, therefore, are only suitable for client-specific transient state.
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 have one direct exchange. There is also one queue, bound to this exchange.
I have two consumers for that queue. The consumers are manually ack'ing the messages once they've done the corresponding processing.
The messages are logically ordered/sorted, and should be processed in that order. Is it possible to enforce that all messages are received and processed sequentially accross consumer A and consumer B? In other words, prevent A and B from processing messages at the same time.
Note: the consumers are not sharing the same connection and/or channel. This means I cannot use <channel>.basicQoS(1);.
Rationale of this question: both consumers are identicall. If one goes down, the other queue starts processing messages and everything keeps working without any required intervention.
One approach to handling failover in a case where you want redundant consumers but need to process messages in a specific order is to use the exclusive consumer option when setting up the bind to the queue, and to have two consumers who keep trying to bind even when they can't get the exclusive lock.
The process is something like this:
Consumer A starts first and binds to the queue as an exclusive consumer. Consumer A begins processing messages from the queue.
Consumer B starts next and attempts to bind to the queue as an exclusive consumer, but is rejected because the queue already has an exclusive consumer.
On a recurring basis, consumer B attempts to get an exclusive bind on the queue but is rejected.
Process hosting consumer A crashes.
Consumer B attempts to bind to the queue as an exclusive consumer, and succeeds this time. Consumer B starts processing messages from the queue.
Consumer A is brought back online, and attempts an exclusive bind, but is rejected now.
Consumer B continues to process messages in FIFO order.
While this approach doesn't provide load sharing, it does provide redundancy.
Even though this is already answered. May be this can help others.
RabbitMQ has a feature known as Single Active Consumer, which matches your case.
We can have N consumers attached to a Queue but only 1 (one) of them will be actively consuming messages from the Queue. Fail-over happens only when active consumer fails.
Kindly take a look at the link https://www.rabbitmq.com/consumers.html#single-active-consumer
Thank you
Usually the point of a MQ system is to distribute workload. Of course, there are some situations where processing of message N depends on result of processing the message N-1, or even the N-1 message itself.
If A and B can't process messages at the same time, then why not just have A or just B? As I see it, you are not saving anything with having 2 consumers in a way that one can work only when the other one is not...
In your case, it would be best to have one consumer but to actually do the parallelisation (not a word really) on the processing part.
Just to add that RMQ is distributing messages evenly to all consumers (in round-robin fashion) regardless on any criteria. Of course this is when prefetch is set to 1, which by default it is. More info on that here, look for "fair dispatch".
I have a somewhat unique use case with RabbitMQ and I'm not sure how to go about solving the problem. I want to have one queue with multiple consumers bound to it and then have RabbitMQ send out one message to only one consumer at at time and wait for an ACK before sending out another message to any other consumer.
I realize this kills throughput and can essentially starve the other consumers but for me that's OK. The reason for this odd use case is that the service that the consumers talk to can only handle one concurrent request at a time so I need a way to limit this but consumers can also die unexpectedly and I need another consumer to pick up processing the messages if this happens. I know there is the prefetch option but that still allows multiple users to get a and exclusive queues but I'm not sure those accomplish what I want. Is it possible configure RabbitMQ to do this?
No; there is no way to limit competing consumers on the same queue such that there is one and only one message in process across all consumers until the ack is received.
A similar question came up some time ago; I don't remember if it was here or in the Spring forums but I believe the solution was to have the consumers acquire a global lock of some kind, using something like hazelcast, or even a simple database table row lock (with prefetch=1 so each consumer had only one "in process" message which was processed as and when each one got the lock).