I'm just starting to learn RabbitMQ so forgive me if my question is very basic.
My problem is actually the same with the one posted here:
RabbitMQ - Does one consumer block the other consumers of the same queue?
However, upon investigation, i found out that manual acknowledgement prevents other consumers from getting a message from the queue - blocking state. I would like to know how can I prevent it. Below is my code snippet.
...
var message = receiver.ReadMessage();
Console.WriteLine("Received: {0}", message);
// simulate processing
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(8000);
receiver.Acknowledge();
public string ReadMessage()
{
bool autoAck = false;
Consumer = new QueueingBasicConsumer(Model);
Model.BasicConsume(QueueName, autoAck, Consumer);
_ea = (BasicDeliverEventArgs)Consumer.Queue.Dequeue();
return Encoding.ASCII.GetString(_ea.Body);
}
public void Acknowledge()
{
Model.BasicAck(_ea.DeliveryTag, false);
}
I modify how I get messages from the queue and it seems blocking issue was fixed. Below is my code.
public string ReadOneAtTime()
{
Consumer = new QueueingBasicConsumer(Model);
var result = Model.BasicGet(QueueName, false);
if (result == null) return null;
DeliveryTag = result.DeliveryTag;
return Encoding.ASCII.GetString(result.Body);
}
public void Reject()
{
Model.BasicReject(DeliveryTag, true);
}
public void Acknowledge()
{
Model.BasicAck(DeliveryTag, false);
}
Going back to my original question, I added the QOS and noticed that other consumers can now get messages. However some are left unacknowledged and my program seems to hangup. Code changes are below:
public string ReadMessage()
{
Model.BasicQos(0, 1, false); // control prefetch
bool autoAck = false;
Consumer = new QueueingBasicConsumer(Model);
Model.BasicConsume(QueueName, autoAck, Consumer);
_ea = Consumer.Queue.Dequeue();
return Encoding.ASCII.GetString(_ea.Body);
}
public void AckConsume()
{
Model.BasicAck(_ea.DeliveryTag, false);
}
In Program.cs
private static void Consume(Receiver receiver)
{
int counter = 0;
while (true)
{
var message = receiver.ReadMessage();
if (message == null)
{
Console.WriteLine("NO message received.");
break;
}
else
{
counter++;
Console.WriteLine("Received: {0}", message);
receiver.AckConsume();
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Total message received {0}", counter);
}
I appreciate any comments and suggestions. Thanks!
Well, the rabbit provides infrastructure where one consumer can't lock/block other message consumer working with the same queue.
The behavior you faced with can be a result of couple of following issues:
The fact that you are not using auto ack mode on the channel leads you to situation where one consumer took the message and still didn't send approval (basic ack), meaning that the computation is still in progress and there is a chance that the consumer will fail to process this message and it should be kept in rabbit queue to prevent message loss (the total amount of messages will not change in management consule). During this period (from getting message to client code and till sending explicit acknowledge) the message is marked as being used by specific client and is not available to other consumers. However this doesn't prevent other consumers from taking other messages from the queue, if there are more mossages to take.
IMPORTANT: to prevent message loss with manual acknowledge make sure
to close the channel or sending nack in case of processing fault, to
prevent situation where your application took the message from queue,
failed to process it, removed from queue, and lost the message.
Another reason why other consumers can't work with the same queue is QOS - parameter of the channel where you declare how many messages should be pushed to client cache to improve dequeue operation latency (working with local cache). Your code example lackst this part of code, so I am just guessing. In case like this the QOS can be so big that there are all messages on server marked as belonging to one client and no other client can take any of those, exactly like with manual ack I've already described.
Hope this helps.
Related
I have a RabbitMQ queue to hold unprocessed messages. I happy path, I will read message from the queue, process it, and removes the message in the queue. But if certain criteria are met while processing I have to republish the message to the queue again. I am using a pollable channel adapter to fetch the message. since I want to fetch all the available messages in that queue while polling I have set the maxMessagesPerPoll to -1. This causes the code to go in an infinite loop. after republishing the message into the queue, the inbound polled adapter picks it up immediately. How can I prevent this situation?
Is there any way to delay the message delivery or can we restrict the message processing once per message in single polling of the InboundPolledAdapter. What will be the best approach?
The inboundPolledAdapter is,
#Bean
public IntegrationFlow inboundIntegrationFlowPaymentRetry() {
return IntegrationFlows
.from(Amqp.inboundPolledAdapter(connectionFactory, RetryQueue),
e -> e.poller(Pollers.fixedDelay(20_000).maxMessagesPerPoll(-1)).autoStartup(true))
.handle(message -> {
channelRequestFromQueue()
.send(MessageBuilder.withPayload(message.getPayload()).copyHeaders(message.getHeaders())
.setHeader(IntegrationConstants.QUEUED_MESSAGE, message).build());
}).get();
}
For the first posting of first message to the queue by,
#Bean
Binding bindingRetryQueue() {
return BindingBuilder.bind(queueRetry()).to(exchangeRetry())
.with(ProcessQueuedMessageService.RETRY_ROUTING_KEY);
}
#Bean
TopicExchange exchangeRetry() {
return new TopicExchange(ProcessQueuedMessageService.RETRY_EXCHANGE);
}
#Bean
Queue queueRetry() {
return new Queue(RetryQueue, false);
}
#Bean
#ServiceActivator(inputChannel = "channelAmqpOutbound")
public AmqpOutboundEndpoint outboundAmqp(AmqpTemplate amqpTemplate) {
final AmqpOutboundEndpoint outbound = new AmqpOutboundEndpoint(amqpTemplate);
outbound.setRoutingKey(RetryQueue);
return outbound;
}
Republishing message by,
StaticMessageHeaderAccessor.getAcknowledgmentCallback(requeueMessage).acknowledge(Status.REQUEUE);
Is there any way to delay the message delivery
See Delayed Exchange feature in Rabbit MQ and its API in Spring AMQP: https://docs.spring.io/spring-amqp/docs/current/reference/html/#delayed-message-exchange
restrict the message processing once per message
For this scenario you can take a look into Idempotent Receiver pattern and its implementation in Spring Integration: https://docs.spring.io/spring-integration/docs/current/reference/html/messaging-endpoints.html#idempotent-receiver.
The redelivered message is going to have an AmqpHeaders.REDELIVERED header.
See more in docs: https://www.rabbitmq.com/reliability.html#consumer-side
Is there a way to receive multiple message using a single synchronous call ?
When I know that there are N messages( N could be a small value less than 10) in the queue, then I should be able to do something like channel.basic_get(String queue, boolean autoAck , int numberofMsg ). I don't want to make multiple requests to the server .
RabbitMQ's basic.get doesn't support multiple messages unfortunately as seen in the docs. The preferred method to retrieve multiple messages is to use basic.consume which will push the messages to the client avoiding multiple round trips. acks are asynchronous so your client won't be waiting for the server to respond. basic.consume also has the benefit of allowing RabbitMQ to redeliver the message if the client disconnects, something that basic.get cannot do. This can be turned off as well setting no-ack to true.
Setting basic.qos prefetch-count will set the number of messages to push to the client at any time. If there isn't a message waiting on the client side (which would return immediately) client libraries tend to block with an optional timeout.
You can use a QueueingConsumer implementation of Consumer interface which allows you to retrieve several messages in a single request.
QueueingConsumer queueingConsumer = new QueueingConsumer(channel);
channel.basicConsume(plugin.getQueueName(), false, queueingConsumer);
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++){
QueueingConsumer.Delivery delivery = queueingConsumer.nextDelivery(100);//read timeout in ms
if(delivery == null){
break;
}
}
Not an elegant solution and does not solve making multiple calls but you can use the MessageCount method. For example:
bool noAck = false;
var messageCount = channel.MessageCount("hello");
BasicGetResult result = null;
if (messageCount == 0)
{
// No messages available
}
else
{
while (messageCount > 0)
{
result = channel.BasicGet("hello", noAck);
var message = Encoding.UTF8.GetString(result.Body);
//process message .....
messageCount = channel.MessageCount("hello");
}
First declare instance of QueueingBasicConsumer() wich wraps the model.
From the model execute model.BasicConsume(QueueName, false, consumer)
Then implement a loop that will loop around messages from the queue which will then processing
Next line - consumer.Queue.Dequeue() method - waiting for the message to be received from the queue.
Then convert byte array to a string and display it.
Model.BasicAck() - release message from the queue to receive next message
And then on the server side can start waiting for the next message to come through:
public string GetMessagesByQueue(string QueueName)
{
var consumer = new QueueingBasicConsumer(_model);
_model.BasicConsume(QueueName, false, consumer);
string message = string.Empty;
while (Enabled)
{
//Get next message
var deliveryArgs = (BasicDeliverEventArgs)consumer.Queue.Dequeue();
//Serialize message
message = Encoding.Default.GetString(deliveryArgs.Body);
_model.BasicAck(deliveryArgs.DeliveryTag, false);
}
return message;
}
If I'm connected to RabbitMQ and listening for events using an EventingBasicConsumer, how can I tell if I've been disconnected from the server?
I know there is a Shutdown event, but it doesn't fire if I unplug my network cable to simulate a failure.
I've also tried the ModelShutdown event, and CallbackException on the model but none seem to work.
EDIT-----
The one I marked as the answer is correct, but it was only part of the solution for me. There is also HeartBeat functionality built into RabbitMQ. The server specifies it in the configuration file. It defaults to 10 minutes but of course you can change that.
The client can also request a different interval for the heartbeat by setting the RequestedHeartbeat value on the ConnectionFactory instance.
I'm guessing that you're using the C# library? (but even so I think the others have a similar event).
You can do the following:
public class MyRabbitConsumer
{
private IConnection connection;
public void Connect()
{
connection = CreateAndOpenConnection();
connection.ConnectionShutdown += connection_ConnectionShutdown;
}
public IConnection CreateAndOpenConnection() { ... }
private void connection_ConnectionShutdown(IConnection connection, ShutdownEventArgs reason)
{
}
}
This is an example of it, but the marked answer is what lead me to this.
var factory = new ConnectionFactory
{
HostName = "MY_HOST_NAME",
UserName = "USERNAME",
Password = "PASSWORD",
RequestedHeartbeat = 30
};
using (var connection = factory.CreateConnection())
{
connection.ConnectionShutdown += (o, e) =>
{
//handle disconnect
};
using (var model = connection.CreateModel())
{
model.ExchangeDeclare(EXCHANGE_NAME, "topic");
var queueName = model.QueueDeclare();
model.QueueBind(queueName, EXCHANGE_NAME, "#");
var consumer = new QueueingBasicConsumer(model);
model.BasicConsume(queueName, true, consumer);
while (!stop)
{
BasicDeliverEventArgs args;
consumer.Queue.Dequeue(5000, out args);
if (stop) return;
if (args == null) continue;
if (args.Body.Length == 0) continue;
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
//Do work here on different thread then this one
}, TaskCreationOptions.PreferFairness);
}
}
}
A few things to note about this.
I'm using # for the topic. This grabs everything. Usually you want to limit by a topic.
I'm setting a variable called "stop" to determine when the process should end. You'll notice the loop runs forever until that variable is true.
The Dequeue waits 5 seconds then leaves without getting data if there is no new message. This is to ensure we listen for that stop variable and actually quit at some point. Change the value to your liking.
When a message comes in I spawn the handling code on a new thread. The current thread is being reserved for just listening to the rabbitmq messages and if a handler takes too long to process I don't want it slowing down the other messages. You may or may not need this depending on your implementation. Be careful however writing the code to handle the messages. If it takes a minute to run and your getting messages at sub-second times you will run out of memory or at least into severe performance issues.
I have a handler similar to the following, which essentially responds to a command and sends a whole bunch of commands to a different queue.
public void Handle(ISomeCommand message)
{
int i=0;
while (i < 10000)
{
var command = Bus.CreateInstance<IAnotherCommand>();
command.Id = i;
Bus.Send("target.queue#d1555", command);
i++;
}
}
The issue with this block is, until the loop is fully completed none of the messages appear in the target queue or in the outgoing queue. Can someone help me understand this behavior?
Also if I use Tasks to send messages within the Handler as below, messages appear immediately. So two questions on this,
What's the explanation on Task based Sends to go through immediately?
Are there are any ramifications on using Tasks with in message handlers?
public void Handle(ISomeCommand message)
{
int i=0;
while (i < 10000)
{
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((args) =>
{
var command = Bus.CreateInstance<IAnotherCommand>();
command.Id = i;
Bus.Send("target.queue#d1555", command);
i++;
});
}
}
Your time is much appreciated!
First question: Picking a message from a queue, running all the registered message handlers for it AND any other transactional action(like writing new messages or writes against a database) is performed in ONE transaction. Either it all completes or none of it. So what you are seeing is the expected behaviour: picking a message from the queue, handling ISomeCommand and writing 10000 new IAnotherCommand is either done completely or none of it. To avoid this behaviour you can do one of the following:
Configure your NServiceBus endpoint to not be transactional
public class EndpointConfig : IConfigureThisEndpoint, AsA_Publisher,IWantCustomInitialization
{
public void Init()
{
Configure.With()
.DefaultBuilder()
.XmlSerializer()
.MsmqTransport()
.IsTransactional(false)
.UnicastBus();
}
}
Wrap the sending of IAnotherCommand in a transaction scope that suppresses the ambient transaction.
public void Handle(ISomeCommand message)
{
using (new TransactionScope(TransactionScopeOption.Suppress))
{
int i=0;
while (i < 10000)
{
var command = Bus.CreateInstance();
command.Id = i;
Bus.Send("target.queue#d1555", command);
i++;
}
}
}
Issue the Bus.Send on another thread, by either starting a new thread yourself, using System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem or the Task classes. This works because an ambient transaction is not automatically carried over to a new thread.
Second question: The ramifications of using Tasks, or any of the other methods I mentioned, is that you have no transactional quarantee for the whole thing.
How do you handle the case where you have generated 5000 IAnotherMessage and the power suddenly goes out?
If you use 2) or 3) the original ISomeMessage will not complete and will be retried automatically by NServiceBus when you start up the endpoint again. End result: 5000 + 10000 IAnotherCommands.
If you use 1) you will lose IAnotherMessage completely and end up with only 5000 IAnotherCommands.
Using the recommended transactional way, the initial 5000 IAnotherCommands would be discarded, the original ISomeMessage comes back on the queue and is retried when the endpoint starts up again. Net result: 10000 IAnotherCommands.
If memory serves NServiceBus wraps the calls to the message handlers in a TransactionScope if the transaction option is used and TransactionScope needs some help to be cross-thread friendly:
TransactionScope and multi-threading
If you are trying to reduce overhead you can also bundle your messages. The signature for the send is Bus.Send(IMessage[]messages). If you can guarantee that you don't blow up the size limit for MSMQ, then you could Send() all the messages at once. If the size limit is an issue, then you can chunk them up or use the Databus.
Is it possible to send message via RabbitMQ with some delay?
For example I want to expire client session after 30 minutes, and I send a message which will be processed after 30 minutes.
There are two approaches you can try:
Old Approach: Set the TTL(time to live) header in each message/queue(policy) and then introduce a DLQ to handle it. once the ttl expired your messages will move from DLQ to main queue so that your listener can process it.
Latest Approach: Recently RabbitMQ came up with RabbitMQ Delayed Message Plugin , using which you can achieve the same and this plugin support available since RabbitMQ-3.5.8.
You can declare an exchange with the type x-delayed-message and then publish messages with the custom header x-delay expressing in milliseconds a delay time for the message. The message will be delivered to the respective queues after x-delay milliseconds
byte[] messageBodyBytes = "delayed payload".getBytes("UTF-8");
Map<String, Object> headers = new HashMap<String, Object>();
headers.put("x-delay", 5000);
AMQP.BasicProperties.Builder props = new
AMQP.BasicProperties.Builder().headers(headers);
channel.basicPublish("my-exchange", "", props.build(), messageBodyBytes);
More here: git
With the release of RabbitMQ v2.8, scheduled delivery is now available but as an indirect feature: http://www.javacodegeeks.com/2012/04/rabbitmq-scheduled-message-delivery.html
Thanks to Norman's answer, I could implement it in Node.js.
Everything is pretty clear from the code.
var ch = channel;
ch.assertExchange("my_intermediate_exchange", 'fanout', {durable: false});
ch.assertExchange("my_final_delayed_exchange", 'fanout', {durable: false});
// setup intermediate queue which will never be listened.
// all messages are TTLed so when they are "dead", they come to another exchange
ch.assertQueue("my_intermediate_queue", {
deadLetterExchange: "my_final_delayed_exchange",
messageTtl: 5000, // 5sec
}, function (err, q) {
ch.bindQueue(q.queue, "my_intermediate_exchange", '');
});
ch.assertQueue("my_final_delayed_queue", {}, function (err, q) {
ch.bindQueue(q.queue, "my_final_delayed_exchange", '');
ch.consume(q.queue, function (msg) {
console.log("delayed - [x] %s", msg.content.toString());
}, {noAck: true});
});
As I don't have enough reputation to add comment, posting a new answer. This is just an addition to what has been already discussed at http://www.javacodegeeks.com/2012/04/rabbitmq-scheduled-message-delivery.html
Except instead of setting ttl on messages, you can set it at queue level. Also you can avoid creating a new exchange just for the sake of redirecting the messages to different Queue. Here is sample Java code:
Producer:
import com.rabbitmq.client.Channel;
import com.rabbitmq.client.Connection;
import com.rabbitmq.client.ConnectionFactory;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
public class DelayedProducer {
private final static String QUEUE_NAME = "ParkingQueue";
private final static String DESTINATION_QUEUE_NAME = "DestinationQueue";
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
ConnectionFactory connectionFactory = new ConnectionFactory();
connectionFactory.setHost("localhost");
Connection connection = connectionFactory.newConnection();
Channel channel = connection.createChannel();
Map<String, Object> arguments = new HashMap<String, Object>();
arguments.put("x-message-ttl", 10000);
arguments.put("x-dead-letter-exchange", "");
arguments.put("x-dead-letter-routing-key", DESTINATION_QUEUE_NAME );
channel.queueDeclare(QUEUE_NAME, false, false, false, arguments);
for (int i=0; i<5; i++) {
String message = "This is a sample message " + i;
channel.basicPublish("", QUEUE_NAME, null, message.getBytes());
System.out.println("message "+i+" got published to the queue!");
Thread.sleep(3000);
}
channel.close();
connection.close();
}
}
Consumer:
import com.rabbitmq.client.ConnectionFactory;
import com.rabbitmq.client.Connection;
import com.rabbitmq.client.Channel;
import com.rabbitmq.client.QueueingConsumer;
public class Consumer {
private final static String DESTINATION_QUEUE_NAME = "DestinationQueue";
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
ConnectionFactory factory = new ConnectionFactory();
factory.setHost("localhost");
Connection connection = factory.newConnection();
Channel channel = connection.createChannel();
channel.queueDeclare(QUEUE_NAME, false, false, false, null);
System.out.println(" [*] Waiting for messages. To exit press CTRL+C");
QueueingConsumer consumer = new QueueingConsumer(channel);
boolean autoAck = false;
channel.basicConsume(DESTINATION_QUEUE_NAME, autoAck, consumer);
while (true) {
QueueingConsumer.Delivery delivery = consumer.nextDelivery();
String message = new String(delivery.getBody());
System.out.println(" [x] Received '" + message + "'");
channel.basicAck(delivery.getEnvelope().getDeliveryTag(), false);
}
}
}
It looks like this blog post describes using the dead letter exchange and message ttl to do something similar.
The code below uses CoffeeScript and Node.js to access Rabbit and implement something similar.
amqp = require 'amqp'
events = require 'events'
em = new events.EventEmitter()
conn = amqp.createConnection()
key = "send.later.#{new Date().getTime()}"
conn.on 'ready', ->
conn.queue key, {
arguments:{
"x-dead-letter-exchange":"immediate"
, "x-message-ttl": 5000
, "x-expires": 6000
}
}, ->
conn.publish key, {v:1}, {contentType:'application/json'}
conn.exchange 'immediate'
conn.queue 'right.now.queue', {
autoDelete: false
, durable: true
}, (q) ->
q.bind('immediate', 'right.now.queue')
q.subscribe (msg, headers, deliveryInfo) ->
console.log msg
console.log headers
That's currently not possible. You have to store your expiration timestamps in a database or something similiar, and then have a helper program that reads those timestamps and queues a message.
Delayed messages are an often requested feature, as they're useful in many situations. However, if your need is to expire client sessions I believe that messaging is not the ideal solution for you, and that another approach might work better.
Suppose you had control over the consumer, you could achieve the delaying on the consumer like this??:
If we are sure that the nth message in the queue always has a smaller delay than the n+1th message (this can true for many use cases): The producer sends timeInformation in the task conveying the time at which this job needs to be executed (currentTime + delay). The consumer:
1) Reads the scheduledTime from the task
2) if currentTime > scheduledTime go ahead.
Else delay = scheduledTime - currentTime
sleep for time indicated by delay
The consumer is always configured with a concurrency parameter. So, the other messages will just wait in the queue until a consumer finishes the job. So, this solution could just work well though it looks awkward especially for big time delays.
AMQP protocol does not support delayed messaging, but by using Time-To-Live and Expiration and Dead Letter Exchanges extensions delayed messaging is possible. The solution is described in this link. I copied the following steps from that link:
Step by step:
Declare the delayed queue
Add the x-dead-letter-exchange argument property, and set it to the default exchange "".
Add the x-dead-letter-routing-key argument property, and set it to the name of the destination queue.
Add the x-message-ttl argument property, and set it to the number of milliseconds you want to delay the message.
Subscribe to the destination queue
There is also a plugin for delayed messaging in RabbitMQ repository on GitHub.
Note that there is a solution called Celery which supports delayed task queuing on RabbitMQ broker by presenting a calling API called apply_async(). Celery supports Python, node and PHP.