I would like to use MassTransmit similar to NServiceBus, every publisher and subscriber has a local queue. However I want to use RabbitMQ.
So do all my desktop clients have to have RabbitMQ installed, I think so, then should I just connect the 50 desktop clients and 2 servers into a cluster?
I know the two servers must be in the same cluster. However 50 client nodes, seems a bi tmuch to put in one cluster.....Or should I shovel them or Federate them to the server cluster exchange?
The desktop machine send messages like: LockOrder, UnLock Order.
The Servers are dealing with backend hl7 messages.
Any help and advice here is much appreciated, this is all on windows machines.
Basically I am leaving NServiceBus behind, as it is now too expensive, they aiming it at large corporations with big budgets, hence Masstransmit.
However I want reliable/durable messaging, hence local queues on ALL publishers and ALL subscribers.
The desktops also use CQS to update their views.
should I just connect the 50 desktop clients and 2 servers into a cluster?
Yes, you have to connected your clients to the cluster.
However 50 client nodes, seems a bi tmuch to put in one cluster.
No, (or it depends how big are your servers) 50 clients is a small number
Or should I shovel them or Federate them to the server cluster exchange?
The desktop machine send messages like: LockOrder, UnLock Order.
I think it's better the cluster, because federation and shovel are asynchronous, it means that your LockOrder could be not replicated in time.
However I want reliable/durable messaging, hence local queues on ALL publishers and ALL subscribers
Withe RMQ you can create a persistent queue and messages, and it is not necessary if the client(s) is connected. It will get the messages when it will connect to the broker.
I hope it helps.
I have a FOSS ESB rpoject called Shuttle, if you would like to give it a spin: https://github.com/Shuttle/shuttle-esb
I haven't used NServiceBus for a while and actually started Shuttle when it went commercial. The implementation is somewhat different from NServiceBus. I don't know MassTransit at all, though. Currently process managers (sagas) have to be hand-rolled in Shuttle whereas MassTransit and NServiceBus have this incorporated. If I do get around to adding sagas I'll be adding them as a Module that can be plugged into the receiving pipeline. This way one could have various implementations and choose the flavour you like :)
Back to your issue. Shuttle has the concept of an optional outbox for queuing technologies like RabbitMQ. Shuttle does have a RabbitMQ implementation. I believe the outbox works somewhat like 'shovel' does. So the outbox would be local and sending messages would first go to the outbox. It would periodically try to send messages on to the recipients and, after a configurable number of attempts, send the message to an error queue. It can then be returned to the outbox for further attempts, or even moved directly to the recipient queue once it is up.
Documentation here: http://shuttle.github.io/shuttle-esb/
Related
NServiceBus Distributor/Worker pattern makes perfect sense for MSMQ due to the hard requirement of local input queues.
But this is not the case with RabbitMQ, I am trying to understand how and when the NServiceBus distributor is relevant with RabbitMQ. With RabbitMQ multiple workers can read from the same remote queue.
The actual scenario is similar to using an AWS auto-scaling group to scale out workers pointing to a high available RabbitMQ cluster. Now avoiding distributor altogether makes the setup much simpler to build, test and provision.
Thoughts?
As RabbitMQ transport falls into the broker style bus, so, in your use case, it would make more sense not to use the distributor.
The same goes for all broker-style transports, where you can use a competing consumer pattern to scale out.
NServiceBus is an excellent system and does wonders in most message queuing system where you don't have an integrated distributor (which you do with exchanges in RabbitMQ). We use NServiceBus here at our company.
Azure Queues and MSMQ are perfect examples of such queuing technologies.
NServiceBus handles the distribution internally and therefore reproduces this capability for you.
However... If you are blessed with the possibility of imposing what queuing technology you can use, then I would highly encourage you to look into RabbitMQ and a product (Open Source) called MassTransit
http://masstransit-project.com/
MassTransit can in turn function in the two modes and will either delegate or simulate the distribution for you - however I nonetheless have a soft spot for NServiceBus as do our senior devs here.
Per this page...
http://docs.particular.net/nservicebus/load-balancing-with-the-distributor
Using the distributor is only useful when using MSMQ - if you aren't using MSMQ then there is no point. RabbitMQ and other transport will allow access to the same queue from multiple consumers, while MSMQ will not. The distributor in a nutshell will take messages from the main queue and distribute them across multiple worker queues as they report that they are done with whatever they are working on.
I am trying to set up cluster of brokers, which should have same feature like rabbitMQ cluster, but over WAN (my machines are in different locations), so rabbitMQ cluster does not work.
I am looking to alternatives, rabbitMQ federation is just backup the messages in the downstream, can not make sure they have exactly the same messages available at any time (downstream still keeps the old messages already consumed in the upstream)
how about ActiveMQ Master/Slave, I have found :
http://activemq.apache.org/how-do-distributed-queues-work.html
"queues and topics are all replicated between each broker in the cluster (so often to a master and maybe a single slave). So each broker in the cluster has exactly the same messages available at any time so if a master fails, clients failover to a slave and you don't loose a message."
My concern is that if it can automatically update to make sure Master/Slave always have the same messages, which means the consumed messages in Master will also disappear in Slaves.
Thanks :)
ActiveMQ has various clustering features.
First there is High Availability - "Master/Slave". The idea is that several physical servers act as a single logical ActiveMQ broker. If one goes down, another takes it place without losing data. You can do that by sharing the message store (shared file system or shared JDBC), or you could setup a replicated cluster, which replicates read/writes to the master down to all slaves (you need three+ servers). ActiveMQ is using LevelDB and Apache Zookeeper to achieve this.
The other format of cluster available in ActiveMQ is to be able to distribute load and separate security over several logical brokers. Brokers are then connected in a network of brokers. Messages are by default passed around to the broker with available consumers for that message. However, there is a rich toolbox of features in ActiveMQ to tweak a network of brokers to do things as always send a copy of a message to specific broker etc. It takes some messing with the more advanced features though (static network connectors and queue mirroring, maybe more).
Maybe there is a better way to solve your requirements, which is not really specified in the question?
There're 2 brokers which are configured as a cluster through network connector.
Allways, messages are sent by a producer to broker0, and consumed by a consumer of broker0. But we found that some duplicated messages are sent to broker1, even broker0 are working well.
That's say, this duplicated messages are contains in both broker0 and broker1. Could anyone tell me the reason ?
Thank you
Such kind of situation can occur, if you are trying to use two independent ActiveMQ instances in a cluster and client has been given access to both broker URLs.
The solution is to use the master-slave feature that is designed to provide high availability.
I am wondering if there is a way to setup NServiceBus so that the machine actually getting the message from a publisher does not have the InputQueue on it. Also, I would like to publish to a general queue (though this can be accomplished with a web service.)
I am thinking I may use this to allow client machines to post and receive events. But the client machines are fairly locked down. If I need to have queues created on them I can, but it would be easier to have the queues uniquely named and in a more central location.
I am new to NServiceBus and pub/sub in general. So if I am off base on what I want please say so.
This sounds like the perfect candidate for an alternate queuing infrastructure beyond MSMQ--such as Azure Queues or Amazon SQS. With those types of queues you have no infrastructure to install on the client machines and everything is much more centralized.
Before you go down that road though, you'll want to get the basics of publish/subscribe under you. Pub/sub using MSMQ and NServiceBus has a decent learning curve to it and if you aren't familiar with how things work at that level then moving to cloud queues may be even more tricky.
I'm currently in the middle of developing a webapplication which needs a websocket connection to receive notifications of events from the server.
The clients are separated in groups and all the clients in a group must receive the same event notifications.
I thought that ActiveMQ could probably support this model, using different queues for each group of clients. It would also be relatively easy to push events to ActiveMQ using stomp, and then use stomp-over-websockets for the clients.
The problem I see is that messages should not be consumed by only one client, but distributed to all the clients connected to the queue.
Also the queue should not be stored. If a client is not connected when the event is generated, then it will never receive it.
I don't know ActiveMQ that much, so I'm not sure if this is possible or if there is another easy solution that could be used instead of writing my own message server.
Thanks
ActiveMQ 5.4.1 supports WebSockets natively (just like Stomp, JMS, etc.).
There is the concept of queues (you mentioned these), but also of topics.
In a queue, a single message will be received by exactly one consumer, in a topic
it goes to all the subscribers. See: http://activemq.apache.org/how-does-a-queue-compare-to-a-topic.html
There are some Stomp-WebSocket JS libraries floating around. Kaazing has a bundle that includes ActiveMQ and supports JMS API/Stomp protocol over WebSockets with support for older browsers, different client technologies, and Cross-Site security.
Look at Pusher, otherwise you'll need something that supports topic based pub/sub. You could look at Redis or RabbitMQ