I need to support priority and my msmq is transnational. I am currently using WCF to send and receive messages. I just found out that this is not supported with the current implementation of msmq (version 4). Still, I need to support this.
I don't want to have multiple queues based on priority because at the end, the different queues are not connected. Also, its messy.
I was wondering if anything did a better solution to this problem?
What about putting a non-transaction queue in front of the transaction queue? messages will send with priority to the non-transaction queue, and when processed they will be sent to the transaction queue for the real processing...
Well, like you said, because transactions guarantee deliver of messages in order they were sent you can't prioritize them.
The only way I could think of doing this is to either create a new service contract and endpoint for high/low priority messages within the same service (not nice), or host two instances of your service, one for high and one for low priority.
Related
We are building spark based jobs. Processing each message delivered by the queue takes time. There is a need to be able to reprioritize one already sent to the queue.
I am aware there is priority queue implementation available, but not sure how to re-prioritize the existing message in the queue?
One bad workaround is to push that message again as higher priority, so that it handled on priority. Later drop the message with same content which had low or no priority when it's turns comes next.
Is there a natural way we can handle this situation or any other queues that supports scenario better?
Unfortunately there isn't. Queues are to be considered as lists of messages in flight. It is not possible to delete/update them.
Your approach of submitting a higher priority message is the only feasible solution.
RabbitMQ is a messaging system (such as the postal one), it is not a DataBase or a storage service. The storage in form of queues is a necessary feature as much as the postal service needs storage for postcards in transit. It is optimized for the purpose and does not allow to access the messages easily.
I have a question about multi consumer concurrency.
I want to send works to rabbitmq that comes from web request to distributed queues.
I just want to be sure about order of works in multiple queues (FIFO).
Because this request comes from different users eech user requests/works must be ordered.
I have found this feature with different names on Azure ServiceBus and ActiveMQ message grouping.
Is there any way to do this in pretty RabbitMQ ?
I want to quaranty that customer's requests must be ordered each other.
Each customer may have multiple requests but those requests for that customer must be processed in order.
I desire to process quickly incoming requests with using multiple consumer on different nodes.
For example different customers 1 to 1000 send requests over 1 millions.
If I put this huge request in only one queue it takes a lot of time to consume. So I want to share this process load between n (5) node. For customer X 's requests must be in same sequence for processing
When working with event-based systems, and especially when using multiple producers and/or consumers, it is important to come to terms with the fact that there usually is no such thing as a guaranteed order of events. And to get a robust system, it is also wise to design the system so the message handlers are idempotent; they should tolerate to get the same message twice (or more).
There are way to many things that may (and actually should be allowed to) interfere with the order;
The producers may deliver the messages in a slightly different pace
One producer might miss an ack (due to a missed package) and will resend the message
One consumer may get and process a message, but the ack is lost on the way back, so the message is delivered twice (to another consumer).
Some other service that your handlers depend on might be down, so that you have to reject the message.
That being said, there is one pattern that servicebus-systems like NServicebus use to enforce the order messages are consumed. There are some requirements:
You will need a centralized storage (like a sql-server or document store) that allows for conditional updates; for instance you want to be able to store the sequence number of the last processed message (or how far you have come in the process), but only if the already stored sequence/progress is the right/expected one. Storing the user-id and the progress even for millions of customers should be a very easy operation for most databases.
You make sure the queue is configured with a dead-letter-queue/exchange for retries, and then set your original queue as a dead-letter-queue for that one again.
You set a TTL (for instance 30 seconds) on the retry/dead-letter-queue. This way the messages that appear on the dead-letter-queue will automatically be pushed back to your original queue after some timeout.
When processing your messages you check your storage/database if you are in the right state to handle the message (i.e. the needed previous steps are already done).
If you are ok to handle it you do and update the storage (conditionally!).
If not - you nack the message, so that it is thrown on the dead-letter queue. Basically you are saying "nah - I can't handle this message, there are probably some other message in the queue that should be handled first".
This way the happy-path is to process a great number of messages in the right order.
But if something happens and a you get a message out of band, you will throw it on the retry-queue (the dead-letter-queue) and Rabbit will make sure it will get back in the queue to be retried at a later stage. But only after a delay.
The beauty of this is that you are able to handle most of the situations that may interfere with processing the message (out of order messages, dependent services being down, your handler being shut down in the middle of handling the message) in exact the same way; by rejecting the message and letting your infrastructure (Rabbit) take care of it being retried after a while.
(Assuming the OP is asking about things like ActiveMQs "message grouping:)
This isn't currently built in to RabbitMQ AFAIK (it wasn't as of 2013 as per this answer) and I'm not aware of it now (though I haven't kept up lately).
However, RabbitMQ's model of exchanges and queues is very flexible - exchanges and queues can be easily created dynamically (this can be done in other messaging systems but, for example, if you read ActiveMQ documentation or Red Hat AMQ documentation you'll find all of the examples in the user guides are using pre-declared queues in configuration files loaded at system startup - except for RPC-like request/response communication).
Also it is very easy in RabbitMQ for a consumer (i.e., message consuming thread) to consume from multiple queues.
So you could build, on top of RabbitMQ, a system where you got your desired grouping semantics.
One way would be to create dynamic queues: The first time a customer order was seen or a new group of customer orders a queue would be created with a unique name for all messages for that group - that queue name would be communicated (via another queue) to a consumer who's sole purpose was to load-balance among other consumers that were responsible for handling customer order groups. I.e., the load-balancer would pull off of its queue a message saying "new group with queue name XYZ" and it would find in a pool of order group consumer a consumer which could take this load and pass it a message saying "start listening to XYZ".
Another way to do it is with pub/sub and topic routing - each customer order group would get a unique topic - and proceed as above.
RabbitMQ Consistent Hash Exchange Type
We are using RabbitMQ and we have found a plugin. It use Consistent Hashing algorithm to distribute messages in order to consistent keys.
For more information about Consistent Hashing ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_hashing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaNG1zyx1g
You can find this plugin from rabbitmq web page
plugin : rabbitmq_consistent_hash_exchange
https://www.rabbitmq.com/plugins.html
If I have two queues from which I want to consume messages, and I use a single SimpleMessageQueueListenerContainer for it, in which order would the listeners be invoked/messages consumed when both queues have messages?
I will try to be more specific of the problem I am working on:
I have a consumer application which needs to consume messages from 2 queues – say regular-jobs-queue and infrequent-jobs-queue. If there are any messages in ‘infrequent-jobs-queue’ I want to consume those before consuming messages from ‘regular-jobs-queue’. I might not be able to combine these and put all messages into a single rabbitmq level priority queue and assign higher priority to infrequent-job message because of some upcoming use-cases like purging regular-jobs without affecting infrequent-jobs and others.
I am aware that RabbitMQ has support for consumer priority but I am not very sure if it will be applicable here. I want all instances of my consumer application to first consume messages of infrequent-jobs-queue if any and not prioritize amongst these consumers.
Or should I like have 2 containers, with dedicated consumer thread(s) per queue and have an internal priority-queue data structure into which I can put messages as and when consumed from rabbitmq queue.
Any help would be really appreciated. Thanks.
~Rashida
You can't do what you want; messages will be delivered with equal priority.
Moving them to an internal in-memory queue will risk message loss.
You might want to consider using one of the RabbitTemplate.receive() or receiveAndConvert() methods instead of a message-driven container.
That way you have complete control.
I am starting with ActiveMQ and I have a usecase. i have n producers sending messages into a Queue Q1. I want to stop the delivery of messages (i.e. i do not want consumers to consume those messages). I want to store the messages for sometime without those being consumed.
I was looking at ways this can be achieved. These two things came into my mind based on what i browsed through.
Using Mirrored queues, so that I can wiretap the messages and save into a virtual queue.
Possibly stop consumers from doing a PULL on the queue.
Another dirty way of doing this is by making consumers not send ack messages once its consumed a message from the queue.
We are currently not happy with either of these.
Any other way you can suggest.
Thanks in advance.
If you always want message delivery to be delayed you can use the scheduler feature of ActiveMQ to delay delivery until a set time or a fixed delay etc.
Other strategies might also work but it really up to you to design something that fits your use case. You can try to use Apache Camel to define a route that implements the logic of your use case to either dispatch a message to a Queue or send it to the scheduler for delayed processing. It all really depends on your use case and requirements.
I have a somewhat unique use case with RabbitMQ and I'm not sure how to go about solving the problem. I want to have one queue with multiple consumers bound to it and then have RabbitMQ send out one message to only one consumer at at time and wait for an ACK before sending out another message to any other consumer.
I realize this kills throughput and can essentially starve the other consumers but for me that's OK. The reason for this odd use case is that the service that the consumers talk to can only handle one concurrent request at a time so I need a way to limit this but consumers can also die unexpectedly and I need another consumer to pick up processing the messages if this happens. I know there is the prefetch option but that still allows multiple users to get a and exclusive queues but I'm not sure those accomplish what I want. Is it possible configure RabbitMQ to do this?
No; there is no way to limit competing consumers on the same queue such that there is one and only one message in process across all consumers until the ack is received.
A similar question came up some time ago; I don't remember if it was here or in the Spring forums but I believe the solution was to have the consumers acquire a global lock of some kind, using something like hazelcast, or even a simple database table row lock (with prefetch=1 so each consumer had only one "in process" message which was processed as and when each one got the lock).