Is there a good best practice about what kind of messages an application is allowed to reject?
My understanding is that all messages which can't be handled should be rejected to the dead letter queue - no matter if the problem is a syntax error or a semantic error in the message or if the application is temporarily not able to handle the message (for instance because the db just went down).
Of course - if the app already knows upfront that it will not be able to handle a message (DB down), it should stop accepting messages.
So what's the common understanding / best practice?
My response is with respect to WebSphere MQ:
A Dead Letter Queue (DLQ for short) is a place where messages that could not be delivered to their destination are put. Messages can be put on the DLQ by queue managers, message channel agents (MCAs), and applications. All messages on the DLQ must be prefixed with a dead-letter header structure, MQDLH. The MQDLH header is automatically fixed when queue manager or MCAs put messages whereas applications must prefix the MQDLH explicitly.
As far applications are concerned, if they are unable to handle the message, say for example the message format is not understood, they can put the message to a BACKOUT queue instead of a DLQ. A BACKOUT queue is just like any normal queue where messages rejected by applications can be put. The advantage of BACKOUT queue is that you can specify a BACKOUT queue on a per queue basis and the messages put there need not have MQDLH header prefixed.
An application can be written to read the messages from BACKOUT and route them back to the target queue as it is. However the messages in a DLQ require additional processing to remove the MQDLH before they are put onto a target queue.
Related
I wonder if the following scenario is possible:
Create an exchange of type direct
Publish a message to that exchange with routing key rk1
After that:
Create a queue which accepts messages with routing key rk1
Consume message published to exchange
It seems like if there is no queue present, the message is dropped and there is no way to receive it.
So basically I want to be able to produce messages when there are no consumers present. And consume them some time later.
It seems like if there is no queue present, the message is dropped and there is no way to receive it.
Yes, this is correct, but it's only part of the story.
A message queue is the storage location for messages published to the server. A consumer is a designated connection set to receive messages put into a queue. The exchange is simply a location to push messages. It contains the routing semantics to determine which messages wind up in the queues on the server. When a message cannot be routed to a queue and/or consumer, there are various semantics that can apply, but the default is that the message is dropped.
Options for dealing with unroutable messages:
Alternate exchange - designates a different exchange where messages can be dumped if they cannot be routed to a queue on the current exchange. This can be thought of similar to how TCP/IP works when a destination host is not reachable on the current subnet, and traffic is forwarded to the gateway. Note that a queue must be bound to the alternate exchange for the message to be dumped into. A typical case might be to have it configured as fanout exchange with one queue to trap all messages sent into the alternate exchange.
Mandatory or Immediate - return a message back to the sender if it can't be delivered. The server does not store the message.
Mandatory designates that the message must be deliverable to a queue at the time it is published. If the message is not routable, the publisher will receive a basic.return.
Immediate designates that, in addition to being deliverable, must be immediately routed to a consumer on a particular queue (e.g. it's not good enough that it be dumped in a queue for pickup later - it has to be delivered to the end consumer right now.
In every case, if there is no queue, the server cannot store the message.
The entity queue is the one that is supposed to hold the messages , so without a queue the messages will be lost.
However in case you do not create any exchange with appropriate routing key you may leverage dead lettering feature in rabbitmq.
Another solution could be to declare the queue with the binding after the exchange and before publishing the message; this way the message will be routed and stored, but you may have to add some TTLs ( https://www.rabbitmq.com/ttl.html ).
I have the following problem.
My program sends messages directly to the Queue (without exchange). I need to monitor incoming of new messages and send them to other Queue without removing them from source queue.
I don't have access to program code, so I'm not able to publish messages to exchange first.
Is it possible to solve this problem using the management web interface of RabbitMQ?
I tried to use shovel plugin, but it removes all messages from source queue after ack.
First to clear up few things:
My program sends messages directly to the Queue (without exchange) This is not true, at the very least (and most likely in this case) nameless exchange is used.
removes all messages from source queue after ack
this is by design and therefore perfectly fine.
You should never keep messages in the queue, queue is made to be consumed. As Derick Bailey says here
RabbitMQ is not a database. RabbitMQ is a message broker and queueing system.
on the same link you will find your answer. I cannot give a concrete one since you didn't provide motivation, but whatever it is keeping messages in the queue is never good!
Maybe you want to log/store your message first and then process it with the consequence of processing being some 3rd action or whatever...
We have a WCF service that listens for messages on a queue (MSMQ). It sends a request to our web server (REST API), which returns an HTTP status code.
If the status code falls within the 400 range, we are throwing away the message. The idea is a 400 range error can never succeed (unauthorized, bad request, not found, etc.) and so we don't want keep retrying.
For all other errors (e.g., 500 - Internal Server Error), we have WCF configured to put the message on a "retry" queue. Messages on the retry queue get retried after a certain amount of time. The idea is that the server is temporarily down, so wait and try again.
The way WCF is set up, if we throw a FaultException in the service contract, it will automatically put the message on the retry queue.
When a message causes a 400 range error, we are just swallowing the error (we just log it). This prevents the retry mechanism from firing; however, it would be better to move the message to a dead-letter queue. This way we can react to the error by sending an email to the user and/or a system administrator.
Is there a way to immediately move these bad messages to a dead-letter queue?
First, I kept referring to the dead-letter queue. At the time when I posted this question, I was unaware that WCF/MSMQ automatically creates what's known as a poison sub-queue. Any message that can't be delivered in the configured number of times is put in the poison sub-queue.
In my situation, I knew that some messages would never succeed, so I wanted to move the message out of the queue immediately.
The solution was to create a second queue that I called "poison" (not to be confused with the poison sub-queue). My catch block would create an instance of a WCF client and forward the message to this poison queue. I could reuse the same client to post to both the original queue and the poison queue; I just had to create a separate client end-point in the configuration file for each.
I had two separate ServiceHost instances running that read the queues. The ServiceHost for the original queue did the HTTP request and forwarded messages to the poison queue when unrecoverable errors occurred. The second ServiceHost would simply send out an email to record that a message was lost.
There was also the issue of temporary errors that exceeded the maximum number of tries. WCF/MSMQ automatically creates a sub-queue called <myqueuename>;poison. You cannot directly write to a sub-queue via WCF, but you can read from it using a ServiceHost. Whenever messages end up in the poison sub-queue, I simply forward the message to the poison queue, with the exact same client I use in the original handler's catch block.
I wanted the ability to include a stack trace in the error emails. Since I was reusing the same client and service contract for all of the handlers, I couldn't just pass along the stack trace as a string (unless I added it to all of my data contracts). Instead, I had the poison handler try to execute the code one more time, which would fail again and spit out the stack trace.
This is what my message queues ended up looking like:
MyQueue
- Queue messages
- Retry
- Poison
MyQueuePoison
- Queue messages
This approach is pretty convoluted. It was strange calling A WCF client from within a WCF service handler. It also meant setting up one more queue on the server and a ton of additional configuration sections for specifying which queue a client should forward messages to.
hopefully I have understood your question and if it is what i think you are saying then yes there is but you obviously need to program it to do this. But you DO need a retry amount set so the MSMQ can retry until it gives up. Or you can create your own custom queue for dead letters/messages
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms789035(v=vs.110).aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms752268(v=vs.110).aspx
take a look here also:
http://www.michaelfcollins3.me/blog/2012/09/20/wcf-msmq-bad-message-handling.html
How do I handle message failure in MSMQ bindings for WCF
I hope these links help.
Suppose I have an application fed by a MQ queue. When the application receives a message that contains errors, the application itself pushes the received message to a certain invalid message queue.
My question is: what is the recommended way to have the receiving application append the failure/rejection reason to the message pushed on the invalid message queue? Some solutions come to mind, but I'm unsure which one is considered "best-practice":
(ab)using a standard header field
adding a custom header
encapsualting the message in another message
If all that you need is to place a reason code in the message, use the MQMD.Feedback field with one of the standard reason codes. In WMQ v7.0 or later, the application can set any number of message properties which are then readable both with JMS semantics and native WMQ API calls. It is up to you to define the taxonomy for naming the application-defined properties.
If the message is requeued to the Dead Letter Queue instead of an application-owned backout queue, it is customary to prepend a Dead Letter Header to it. The MQDLH structure contains a field for the reason code describing why that the message was requeued. As a rule, applications should avoid using the DLQ in favor of an application-owned queue. When applications do use the DLQ, it is normal that they should have access to put messages there but not to retrieve messages from that queue. This is because it is a system-wide resource and messages from different applications may land there. Normally, an admin application or person with elevated access is responsible for adjudicating and disposing of messages on the system DLQ.
I am using RabbitMQ server.
For publishing messages, I set the immediate field to true and tried sending 50,000 messages. Using rabbitmqctl list_queues, I saw that the number of messages in the queue was zero.
Then, I changed the immediate flag to false and again tried sending 50,000 messages. Using rabbitmqctl list_queues, I saw that a total of 100,000 messages were in queues (till now, no consumer was present).
After that, I started a consumer and it consumed all the 100,000 messages.
Can anybody please help me in understanding about the immediate bit field and this behavior too? Also, I could not understand the concept of the mandatory bit field.
The immediate and mandatory fields are part of the AMQP specification, and are also covered in the RabbitMQ FAQ to clarify how its implementers interpreted their meaning:
Mandatory
This flag tells the server how to
react if a message cannot be routed to
a queue. Specifically, if mandatory is
set and after running the bindings the
message was placed on zero queues then
the message is returned to the sender
(with a basic.return). If mandatory
had not been set under the same
circumstances the server would
silently drop the message.
Or in my words, "Put this message on at least one queue. If you can't, send it back to me."
Immediate
For a message published with immediate
set, if a matching queue has ready
consumers then one of them will have
the message routed to it. If the lucky
consumer crashes before ack'ing
receipt the message will be requeued
and/or delivered to other consumers on
that queue (if there's no crash the
messaged is ack'ed and it's all done
as per normal). If, however, a
matching queue has zero ready
consumers the message will not be
enqueued for subsequent redelivery on
from that queue. Only if all of the
matching queues have no ready
consumers that the message is returned
to the sender (via basic.return).
Or in my words, "If there is at least one consumer connected to my queue that can take delivery of a message right this moment, deliver this message to them immediately. If there are no consumers connected then there's no point in having my message consumed later and they'll never see it. They snooze, they lose."
http://www.rabbitmq.com/blog/2012/11/19/breaking-things-with-rabbitmq-3-0/
Removal of "immediate" flag
What changed? We removed support for the
rarely-used "immediate" flag on AMQP's basic.publish.
Why on earth did you do that? Support for "immediate" made many parts
of the codebase more complex, particularly around mirrored queues. It
also stood in the way of our being able to deliver substantial
performance improvements in mirrored queues.
What do I need to do? If you just want to be able to publish messages
that will be dropped if they are not consumed immediately, you can
publish to a queue with a TTL of 0.
If you also need your publisher to be able to determine that this has
happened, you can also use the DLX feature to route such messages to
another queue, from which the publisher can consume them.
Just copied the announcement here for a quick reference.