I have implemented GCM CCS server-client architecture. The problem is sometimes I receive a message multiple times, even though the first time I ACK it, like I do with the rest of the messages. What could be the problem ?
Note that the message I receive multiple times has the exact same XMPP stanza every time, nothing changes (ex, even same message_id, so it's like GCM never received my ACK for the first time).
So apparently this just happens. Why ? No f*cking idea. The explanation would be that the initial ACK sent from the server to the GCM server is not received, thus GCM sends the message again. In conclusion, just take care in the code for duplicate messages to be on the safe side. Quite pathetic, but whatever.
Pls see..
"If the connection between CCS and the device is poor, GCM may send multiple, duplicate delivery receipts. You can safely ignore such duplicates."
https://developers.google.com/cloud-messaging/ccs
Related
I am trying to use streams with redis using Reddison lib. I am using code StreamReadGroupArgs.neverDelivered() when receiving the messages. But if I don't ack it then the next time when readGroup is called it does not get those messages. The problem is that what if the node crashed or there was a glitch in network and I could not process those messages. Then even if I have not ack it I will not get those messages again. Is there a workaround for this or something else that I can do?
This is the correct behavior. Otherwise you will end up receiving redundant messages everytime.
Either you have to acknowledge or you have to explicitly ask redis to resend the messages which you have not acknowledged. For that StreamReadGroupArgs.neverDelivered() is not a correct option. Because it was already delivered. But you lost the message somehow.
Correct option for your use case is the below one which will send the messages which are not acknowledged.
StreamReadGroupArgs.greaterThan(new StreamMessageId(0))
The telegram documentation states:
Receipt of virtually all messages (with the exception of some purely
service ones as well as the plain-text messages used in the protocol
for creating an authorization key) must be acknowledged. This requires
the use of the following service message (not requiring an
acknowledgment):
msgs_ack#62d6b459 msg_ids:Vector long = MsgsAck;
This thread alludes to sending acks back to the server but not the mechanism by which those acks are sent. I attempted sending a MsgsAck and a msgs_ack to the server but they failed because those are data types, not constructors (methods). This leads me to two questions:
How does a telegram client send acks back to the server? (both individually and as part of a method call)
How does a telegram client differentiate between server responses that require an ack and those who don't? (it appears responses that include a req_msg_id require an ack, but I'd like confirmation)
The simple way to go about this is:
1) accumulate the msg_ids that you receive for from the server - those that need to be acknowledged as indicated in the documentation: these are all content related messages, not service messages
2) Every time you want to send new messages to the server, you could include your accumulated acknowledgment messages in a message container along with the messages you intend to send.
3) If you have accumulated msg_ids to be acknowledged for over a period say X minutes, without an opportunity to clear them via step 2) above, then you can simply send an acknowledgment message back to telegram wit the list of msg_ids to be acknowledged.
To send an acknowledgement use this:
msgs_ack#62d6b459 msg_ids:Vector<long> = MsgsAck;
I have a clients that uses API. The API sends messeges to rabbitmq. Rabbitmq to workers.
I ought to reply to clients if somethings went wrong - message wasn't routed to a certain queue and wasn't obtained for performing at this time ( full confirmation )
A task who is started after 5-10 seconds does not make sense.
Appropriately, I must use mandatory and immediate flags.
I can't increase counts of workers, I can't run workers on another servers. It's a demand.
So, as I could find the immediate flag hadn't been supporting since rabbitmq v.3.0x
The developers of rabbitmq suggests to use TTL=0 for a queue instead but then I will not be able to check status of message.
Whether any opportunity to change that behavior? Please, share your experience how you solved problems like this.
Thank you.
I'm not sure, but after reading your original question in Russian, it might be that using both publisher and consumer confirms may be what you want. See last three paragraphs in this answer.
As you want to get message result for published message from your worker, it looks like RPC pattern is what you want. See RabbitMQ RPC tuttorial. Pick a programming language section there you most comfortable with, overall concept is the same. You may also find Direct reply-to useful.
It's not the same as immediate flag functionality, but in case all your publishers operate with immediate scenario, it might be that AMQP protocol is not the best choice for such kind of task. Immediate mean "deliver this message right now or burn in hell" and it might be a situation when you publish more than you can process. In such cases RPC + response timeout may be a good choice on application side (e.g. socket timeout). But it doesn't work well for non-idempotent RPC calls while message still be processed, so you may want to use per-queue or per-message TTL (or set queue length limit). In case message will be dead-lettered, you may get it there (in case you need that for some reason).
TL;DR
As to "something" can go wrong, it can go so on different levels which we for simplicity define as:
before RabbitMQ, like sending application failure and network problems;
inside RabbitMQ, say, missed destination queue, message timeout, queue length limit, some hard and unexpected internal error;
after RabbitMQ, in most cases - messages processing application error or some third-party services like data persistence or caching layer outage.
Some errors like network outage or hardware error are a bit epic and are not a subject of this q/a.
Typical scenario for guaranteed message delivery is to use publisher confirms or transactions (which are slower). After you got a confirm it mean that RabbitMQ got your message and if it has route - placed in a queue. If not it is dropped OR if mandatory flag set returned with basic.return method.
For consumers it's similar - after basic.consumer/basic.get, client ack'ed message it considered received and removed from queue.
So when you use confirms on both ends, you are protected from message loss (we'll not run into a situation that there might be some bug in RabbitMQ itself).
Bogdan, thank you for your reply.
Seems, I expressed my thought enough clearly.
Scheme may looks like this. Each component of system must do what it must do :)
The an idea is make every component more simple.
How to task is performed.
Clients goes to HTTP-API with requests and must obtain a respones like this:
Positive - it have put to queue
Negative - response with error and a reason
When I was talking about confirmation I meant that I must to know that a message is delivered ( there are no free workers - rabbitmq can remove a message ), a client must be notified.
A sent message couldn't be delivered to certain queue, a client must be notified.
How to a message is handled.
Messages is sent for performing.
Status of perfoming is written into HeartBeat
Status.
Clients obtain status from HeartBeat by itself and then decide that
it's have to do.
I'm not sure, that RPC may be useful for us i.e. RPC means that clients must to wait response from server. Tasks may works a long time. Excess bound between clients and servers, additional logic on client-side.
Limited size of queue maybe not useful too.
Possible situation when a size of queue maybe greater than counts of workers. ( problem in configuration or defined settings ).
Then an idea with 5-10 seconds doesn't make sense.
TTL doesn't usefull because of:
Setting the TTL to 0 causes messages to be expired upon reaching a
queue unless they can be delivered to a consumer immediately. Thus
this provides an alternative to basic.publish's immediate flag, which
the RabbitMQ server does not support. Unlike that flag, no
basic.returns are issued, and if a dead letter exchange is set then
messages will be dead-lettered.
direct reply-to :
The RPC server will then see a reply-to property with a generated
name. It should publish to the default exchange ("") with the routing
key set to this value (i.e. just as if it were sending to a reply
queue as usual). The message will then be sent straight to the client
consumer.
Then I will not be able to route messages.
So, I'm sorry. I may flounder in terms i.e. I'm new in AMQP and rabbitmq.
Is there any way of knowing in an QuickBlox app if a message has been throttled due to sending too many messages per second.
I set up a test and sent enough messages to cause throttling, but I can not find any error function or callback that gets called when this happens - it seems the messages are just silently discarded. If this is the case, then it makes me very wary of using QuickBlox.
Gary
You can send as many messages as you can and need
In case of throttling you will be disconnected from Chat, but it's a big limit to reach it
I have a project coming up where I need to send and receive messages through a specific mobile operator, which only provides an SMPP interface. The whole project will be a hosted website. I have already read quite a lot, but I do not yet quite understand what is actually needed from my side to use the protocol.
Should my application try to maintain a constant connection to the smpp?
Can I simply connect, send a message and then disconnect?
Are receiving messages based on push or pull?
Thanks for the help.
SMPP is a peer-to-peer protocol. That should mean that SMS Gateway (your side) and SMSC (your mobile operator) need to have a proper bind/connection established. Even when there are no SMS or DLRs to send/receive, there is a continous exchange of smpp PDU (enquire_link/enquire-link_resp) that ensure that the bind is established.
In detail, if you send an enquire_link PDU and you get no response (enquire_link_resp) the bind is broken. Your sms won't be delivered (will remain enqueued in your gateway store), and you won't receive MOs (incoming sms) or DLRs (delivery report). To re-establish the connection you should re-initiate the connection.
So, my answer would be that you need a constant connection to SMSC.
You are stating you want to receive messages, as a result at least a bind_receiver is needed. Because you don't know when messages are going to come in, you will have to be constantly connected, rather than disconnecting after each event.
With regards to your question about "push or pull" this depends on how you solve the first problem. If you can build a solution that is constantly connected, the result will be a push (the carrier will push it to you as soon as they receive the message). If (for some reason) you cannot maintain a constant connection, you'll end up building a pull mechanism. You'll connect to the carrier ever X seconds to see if they have a message waiting for you.
I do need to highlight 2 pitfalls though:
A number of carriers in the world, do not store or even accept messages if you are not connected, therefore, depending on which carrier you interact with, you might be forced to use a continuous connection.
Most carriers do not allow you to open and close connections in quick succession. Once you disconnect, you can not reconnect for a time frame of X seconds.
Therefore a constant connection is really the way to go. Alternatively, you can look into a company like Nexmo, which will provide you with a HTTP Call every time a message arrives.
I'm not sure which language your developing your application in, but if you use any of the popular languages (Java, PHP, Perl) there are modules out there that handle basic SMPP Connectivity for you. A quick google search for your language and "SMPP Client" will give you a list of references.