Lets say I have a queue with a bunch of messages in it. I have 2 consumers connected to that queue, both set with a prefetch = 1. The work that these consumers do takes some time, and I don't want to acknowledge the message until the work is done (in case the consumer crashes or something - I want the message to automatically reenter the queue in exceptional cases).
But I also want these consumers to work in parallel, and that doesn't appear to be happening. In other words, as long as there are 2+ messages in the queue, I'd expect both consumers to be busy.
What appears to be happening instead is that consumer 1 receives a message, but consumer 2 will wait until consumer 1 has acknowledged the message. Then consumer 2 receives a message and consumer 1 waits, etc.
Is there an option I'm missing? Or should this be working, I just have a bug in my code somewhere? Or is this not possible?
You should be able to pull messages off the queue while previous messages are still being processed by other consumers. The RabbitMQ tutorial specifically points to parallelism as a strength of round-robin dispatching (http://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/tutorial-two-python.html). Are your two consumers running as threads in the same process? I wonder if you've just made a mistake in the implementation.
Related
I have a publisher that sends messages to a consumer that moves a motor.
The motor has a work queue which I cannot access, and it works slower than the rate of the incoming messages, so I'm trying to control the traffic on the consumer.
To keep updated and relevant data coming to the motor without the queue filling up and creating a traffic jam, I set the RabbitMQ queue size limit to 5 and basicQos to 1.
The idea is that the RabbitMQ queue will drop the old messages when it is filled up, so the newest commands are at the front of the queue.
Also by setting basicQos to 1 I ensure that the consumer doesn't grab all messages from the queue and bombards the motor at once, which is exactly what i'm trying to avoid since I can't do anything once the command was sent to the motor.
This way the consumer takes messages from the queue one by one, while new messages replace the old ones on the queue.
Practically this moves the bottleneck to the RabbitMQ queue instead of the motor's queue.
I also cannot check the motor's work queue, so all traffic control must be done on the consumer.
I added messageId and tested, and found out many messages are still coming and going long after the publisher is being shut down.
I'm expecting around 5 messages after shutdown since that's the size of the queue, but i'm getting hundreds.
I also added a few seconds of sleep inside the callback to make sure this isn't the robot queue that's acting up, but i'm still getting many messages after shutdown, and I can see in the logs the callback is being called every time so it's definitely still getting messages from somewhere.
Please help.
Thanks.
Moving the acknowledgment to the end of the callback solved the problem.
I'm guessing that by setting basicQos to 1 it did execute the callback for each message one after another, but in the background it kept grabbing messages from the queue.
So even when the publisher was shutdown, the consumer still had messages that were taken from the queue in it, and those messages were the ones that I saw being executed.
I have a RabbitMQ setup in which jobs are sent to an exchange, which passes them to a queue. A consumer carries out the jobs from the queue correctly in turn. However, these jobs are long processes (several minutes at least). For scalability, I need to be able to have multiple consumers picking a job from the top of the queue and executing it.
The consumer is running on a Heroku dyno called 'queue'. When I scale the dyno, it appears to create additional consumers for each dyno (I can see these on the RabbitMQ dashboard). However, the number of tasks in the queue is unchanged - the extra consumers appear to be doing nothing. Please see the picture below to understand my setup.
Am I missing something here?
Why are the consumers showing as 'idle'? I know from my logs that at least one consumer is actively working through a task.
How can my consumer utilisation be 0% when at least one consumer is definitely working hard.
How can I make the other three consumers actually pull some jobs from the queue?
Thanks
EDIT: I've discovered that the round robin dispatching is actually working, but only if the additional consumers are already running when the messages are sent to the queue. This seems like counterintuitive behaviour to me. If I saw a large queue and wanted to add more consumers, the added consumers would do nothing until more items are added to the queue.
To pick out the key point from the other answer, the likely culprit here is pre-fetching, as described under "Consumer Acknowledgements and Publisher Confirms".
Rather than delivering one message at a time and waiting for it to be acknowledged, the server will send batches to the consumer. If the consumer acknowledges some but then crashes, the remaining messages will be sent to a different consumer; but if the consumer is still running, the unacknowledged messages won't be sent to any new consumer.
This explains the behaviour you're seeing:
You create the queue, and deliver some messages to it, with no consumer running.
You run a single consumer, and it pre-fetches all the messages on the queue.
You run a second consumer; although the queue isn't empty, all the messages are marked as sent to the first consumer, awaiting acknowledgement; so the second consumer sits idle.
A new message arrives in the queue; it is distributed in round-robin fashion to the second consumer.
The solution is to specify the basic.qos option in the consumer. If you set this to 1, RabbitMQ won't send a message to a consumer until it has acknowledged the previous message; multiple consumers with that setting will receive messages in strictly round-robin fashion.
I am not familiar to Heroku, so I don't know how Heroku worker build rabbitMQ consumer, I just have a quick view over Heroku document.
Why are the consumers showing as 'idle'?
I think your mean the queue is 'idle'? Because the queue's state is about the queue's traffic, it just means there is not on-doing job for the queue's job thread. And it will become 'running' when a message is published in the queue.
How can my consumer utilisation be 0% when at least one consumer is definitely working hard.
The same as queue state, from official explanation, consumer utilisation too low means:
There were more consumers
The consumers were faster
The consumers had a higher prefetch count
In your situation, prefetch_count = 0 means no limits on prefetch, so it's too large. And Messages.total = Messages.unacked = 78 means your consumer is too slow, there are two many messages have been processed by consumer.
So if your message rate is not large enough, the state and consumer utilisation field of the queue is useless.
If I saw a large queue and wanted to add more consumers, the added consumers would do nothing until more items are added to the queue.
Because these unacked messages have already been prefetched by exist consumers, they will not be consumed by new consumers unless you requeue the unacked messages.
We're seeing an issue where consumers of our message queues are picking up messages from queues at the top of the alphabetical range. We have two applications: a producer, and a subscriber. We're using RabbitMQ 3.6.1.
Let's say that the message queues are setup like so:
Our first application, the producer, puts say 100 messages/second onto each queue:
Our second application, the subscriber, has five unique consumer methods that can deal with messages on each respective queue. Each method binds to it's respective queue. A subscriber has a prefetch of 1 meaning it can only hold one message at a time, regardless of queue. We may run numerous instances of the subscriber like so:
So the situation is thus: each queue is receiving 100 msg/sec, and we have four instances of subscriber consuming these messages, so each queue has four consumers. Let's say that the consumer methods can deal with 25 msg/sec each.
What happens is that instead of all the queues being consumed equally, the alphabetically higher queues instead get priority. It's seems as though when the subscriber becomes ready, RabbitMQ looks down the list of queues that this particular ready channel is bound to, and picks the first queue with pending messages.
In our situation, A_QUEUE will have every message consumed. B_QUEUE may have some consumed in certain race conditions, but C_QUEUE/D_QUEUE and especially E_QUEUE will rarely get touched.
If we turn off the publisher, the queues will eventually drain, top to bottom.
Is it possible to configure either RabbitMQ itself or possibly even the channel to use some sort of round robin distribution policy or maybe even random policy so that when a channel has numerous bound queues, all with messages pending, the distribution is even?
to clarify: you have a single subscriber application with multiple consumers in it, right?
I'm guessing you're using a single RabbitMQ Connection within the subscriber app.
Are you also re-using a single RabbitMQ Channel for all of your consumers? If so, that would be a problem. Be sure to use a new Channel for each consumer you start.
Maybe the picture is wrong, but if it's not then your setup is wrong. You don't need 4 queues if you are going to have subscribers that listen to each and every queue. You'd just need one queue, that has multiple instances of the same subscriber consuming from it.
Now to answer, yes (but no need to configure, as long as prefetch is 1), actually rabbitmq does distribute messages evenly. You can find about about that here, and on the same place actually how your setup should look like. Here is a quote from the link.
RabbitMQ just dispatches a message when the message enters the queue.
It doesn't look at the number of unacknowledged messages for a
consumer. It just blindly dispatches every n-th message to the n-th
consumer.
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 two questions about RabbitMQ Work Queues:
As I understand it from the RabbitMQ tutorials, it seems that if I have a basic queue consumer client (just a basic "Hello, World!" consumer) and then I add a second consumer client for the same queue, then RabbitMQ will automatically dispatch the messages between those two queues in a round robin manner. Is that true (without adding in any extra configuration)?
My consumer clients are configured to only ever receive one message at a time, using (GetResponse response = channel.basicGet("my_queue", false). Since I am only ever receiving one message at a time, is it still necessary to set a prefetchCount (channel.basicQos(1)) for fair dispatch?
Answers to your questions:
Yes
No
However, your two questions 1 and 2 are not compatible. If you are using a consumer, it is designed to have messages pushed to it, and you don't use Basic.Get. When you use a consumer, you will need to use Basic.QoS to specify that the consumer can only "own" one unacknowledged message at a time. RabbitMQ will not push additional messages beyond the QoS limit.
Your alternative is to "pull" from the queue using Basic.Get, and you will control your own destiny as far as how many messages you run at a time.
Does this make sense?