I have a code which has both consumer and producer. I want to differentiate or find the exact exchange name through which the consumer has consumed the message. For example, I have almost 5 exchanges and I want to know through which exchange out of that 5 the consumer has received it's message. How can this be achieved?
I have done lot of homework but couldn't find a solution.
Messages are consumed from queues, not exchanges.
The way to figure out original exchange that message was published to is to use Firehose Tracer plugin (maybe even with rabbitmq-tracing
plugin alongside).
Alternatively, you may figure out original exchange by comparing queues bindings with message routing key. This usually work well in most cases, unless you have really wired publishers and routing logic.
P.S.: finally, if you have at least read access to publishers code you can figure out where each messages goes from.
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.
I know that achieving round-robin behaviour in a topic exchange can be tricky or impossible so my question in fact is if there is anything I can make out of RabbitMQ or look away to other message queues that support that.
Here's a detailed explanation of my application requirements:
There will be one producer, let's call it P
There (potentially) will be thousands of consumers, let's call them Cn
Each consumer can "subscribe" to 1 or more topic exchange and multiple consumers can be subscribed to the same topic
Every message published into the topic should be consumed by only ONE consumer
Use case #1
Assume:
Topics
foo.bar
foo.baz
Consumers
Consumer C1 is subscribed to topic #
Consumer C2 is subscribed to topic foo.*
Consumer C3 is subscribed to topic *.bar
Producer P publishes the following messages:
publish foo.qux: C1 and C2 can potentially consume this message but only one receives it
publish foo.bar: C1, C2 and C3 can potentially consume this message but only one receives it
Note
Unfortunately I can't have a separate queue for each "topic" therefore using the Direct Exchange doesn't work since the number of topic combinations can be huge (tens of thousands)
From what I've read, there is no out-of-the box solution with RabbitMQ. Does anybody know a workaround or there's another message queue solution that would support this, ex. Kafka, Kinesis etc.
Thank you
There appears to be a conflation of the role of the exchange, which is to route messages, and the queue, which is to provide a holding place for messages waiting to be processed. Funneling messages into one or more queues is the job of the exchange, while funneling messages from the queue into multiple consumers is the job of the queue. Round robin only comes into play for the latter.
Fundamentally, a topic exchange operates by duplicating messages, one for each queue matching the topic published with the message. Therefore, any expectation of round-robin behavior would be a mistake, as it goes against the very definition of the topic exchange.
All this does is to establish that, by definition, the scenario presented in the question does not make sense. That does not mean the desired behavior is impossible, but the terms and topology may need some clarifying adjustments.
Let's take a step back and look at the described lifetime for one message: It is produced by exactly one producer and consumed by one of many consumers. Ordinarily, that is the scenario addressed by a direct exchange. The complicating factor in this is that your consumers are selective about what types of messages they will consume (or, to put it another way, your producer is not consistent about what types of messages it produces).
Ordinarily in message-oriented processing, a single message type corresponds to a single consumer type. Therefore, each different type of message would get its own corresponding queue. However, based on the description given in this question, a single message type might correspond to multiple different consumer types. One issue I have is the following statement:
Unfortunately I can't have a separate queue for each "topic"
On its face, that statement makes no sense, because what it really says is that you have arbitrarily many (in fact, an unknown number of) message types; if that were the case, then how would you be able to write code to process them?
So, ignoring that statement for a bit, we are led to two possibilities with RabbitMQ out of the box:
Use a direct exchange and publish your messages using the type of message as a routing key. Then, have your various consumers subscribe to only the message types that they can process. This is the most common message processing pattern.
Use a topic exchange, as you have, and come up with some sort of external de-duplication logic (perhaps memcached), where messages are checked against it and discarded if another consumer has started to process it.
Now, neither of these deals explicitly with the round-robin requirement. Since it was not explained why or how this was important, it is assumed that it can be ignored. If not, further definition of the problem space is required.
I am trying to set up broadcast messaging to all nodes in the system. When a new node joins the system, it publishes a message to everyone else to announce its entry. The way I have designed is that, a exchange exists to which all nodes will bind its own queue. Whenever a new node joins the system, it will bind its queue as well to the exchange and publish a message to the exchange. All nodes will receive this msg(including itself) and all other nodes(except this message) will send a "ack" message so that the new node will get to know the available nodes in the system. But somehow I couldn't able to get this working. My broadcast messages doesn't propagate to every node in the system. A simple one node publishing and rest consuming is working. But same node publishing and consuming is somehow screwed up somewhere.
Is there any other efficient way of doing this apart from the logic mentioned above? Or is there any restriction from rabbitmq perspective to achieve the above or is my code buggy and do I have to take a closer look at it.
The way you described it, your solution should work. However, without more detailed code examples (of the consume/publish logic in the "announcer" and the consume/acknowledge-publish logic in the other peers) it's difficult to debug.
A couple common problems could be tripping you up, though:
If you're considering "did I get responses back from all the other nodes" as the authority for "did the other nodes get my announce message?", you might need to acknowledge (basic.ack in AMQP) the messages your announcer is receiving as it gets them. Otherwise, it's possible you're not seeing subsequent messages due to consumer prefetch, though in most client libraries you'd have to be explicitly turning that on somewhere first.
Make sure your other peers (the ones receiving the "announce" and sending a message back) are acknowledging the message as well, or are consuming in "no-ack" mode. Otherwise, if they get blocked (via flow, rate-limiting, or prefetch), they will probably receive announces for awhile and then stop.
Make sure you're using a "fanout" type exchange. It sounds like you want unconditional-fanout behavior, so you don't need to muck about with topic routing. If you're using a topic or direct exchange, you may have a bug in your routing logic, in which case switching to fanout will work. I suspect you're already doing this though.
This is likely not the issue, but: you mention that your peers (not the announcer) are "acknowledging" the announce. Make sure that they acknowledge the announce by publishing a new message back to the announcer's queue directly (with no exchange, just a routing key), not by sending a basic.ack to RabbitMQ (that doesn't notify the sender of anything), and not by publishing an announce-received to the fanout exchange.
As an aside, I don't know why you're doing declare-queue/bind/publish as opposed to publish/declare-queue/bind; is there a good reason you need an announcing node to receive its own announce message? If you're after a "self-test" behavior, I think it's probably better to just implement a periodic "can things announce successfully?" health-check somewhere instead, though that's entirely subjective.
Have you tried the RPC style message, with a callback queue that you identify in the broadcast message's propeties? Like at the rabbitmq tutorial.
In the queue I have pushed 10K objects. Timestamp is one of the attribute in object. So, how can I write a consumer code using spring amqp?
can anyone help me on this.
AMQP, unlike JMS, has no notion of message selection for consumers. One solution is to use a topic exchange and set the routing key - let's say consumer 1 binds his queue to the exchange with foo.bar a second one binds with foo.baz; and a third binds with foo.*. The third will get all messages (with routing keys starting with foo.); the others will only get messages with their respective keys.
A direct exchange could also be used; it requires a complete match on the routing key.
You should probably work through all the RabbitMQ tutorials to understand the different exchange types before asking more questions here.
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.