MSMQ queue with multiple processes reading - vb.net

I had a MSMQ application setup where data was being pushed into one queue. Initially I only had one process reading from it and processing it. Since the volume has increased I started multiple processes to read from it which is basically a new instance of my original process. I do not see any errors but the performance has really dropped. My understanding is that each process will read from a queue and receive a new message that has not yet been processed and continue with that. Is this correct or is it possible that multiple processes could end up processing the same message?
Dim q As MessageQueue
If MessageQueue.Exists(".\private$\MsgsIQueue") Then
q = New MessageQueue(".\private$\MsgsIQueue")
Else
'GS - If there is no queue then we're done here
Console.WriteLine("Queue has not been created!")
Return
End If
While True
Dim message As Message
counter += 1
Try
If q.Transactional = True Then
Thread.Sleep(2000)
End If
q.MessageReadPropertyFilter.ArrivedTime = True
message = q.Peek(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(20.0))
message.UseJournalQueue = True
message = q.Receive(New TimeSpan(0, 0, 60))
message.Formatter = New XmlMessageFormatter
(New [String]() {"System.String"})
ProcessMessage(message)
....

Ok, are you sure that it is the queue reading that is actually causing the performance degradation? I would suspect that there is some other bottleneck in your pipeline as MSMQ is really good at handling reading from multiple processes/threads.
If I take a look at your code I would suggest the following changes:
Why sleep for 2 secs if is a tx queue? Always use tx queues and move the call to Sleep to the catch block to have a wait interval if the queue is empty.
Move the setting of the filter outside of the loop.
Remove the call to Peek as it performs nothing of value.
Use journal queue is only of use when sending messages. So remove it.
Set the formatter on the queue instead and it will be used for all reads.
You should also wrap the call to Read and ProcessMessage within a TransactionScope where you also wrap ProcessMessage in another try/catch block. This way you can commit the read if everything went Ok in ProcessMessage or otherwise choose to abort the read or move the message to a dead letter queue.

Related

Redis stream XReadGroup not reading new messages even if `BLOCK` parameter is 0

I am using redis stream and XReadGroup for reading messages from stream. I have set block parameter as 0.
currently my code look like this
data, err := w.rdb.XReadGroup(ctx, &redis.XReadGroupArgs{
Group: w.opts.group,
Consumer: w.opts.consumer,
Streams: []string{w.opts.streamName, ">"},
Count: 1,
Block: 0,
}).Result()
I am currently facing a problem that if I keep the application (involving this code) idle for 10-12 hours, XReadGroup is not able to read new messages, if I restart the application then all the new messages consumed at once. Is there any solution for this problem?
You can have a block time of let's say 10s, it does not change anything (I guess the code you provided is in a while(true)).
From my experience you can keep the app idle for days and it still works.
I don't really know why but I guess it has to do with the "constant" back and forth "reseting" the connection.

SpringAMQP delay

I'm having trouble to identify a way to delay message level in SpringAMQP.
I call a Webservice if the service is not available or if it throws some exception I store all the requests into RabbitMQ queue and i keep retry the service call until it executes successfully. If the service keeps throwing an error or its not available the rabbitMQ listener keeps looping.( Meaning Listener retrieves the message and make service call if any error it re-queue the message)
I restricted the looping until X hours using MessagePostProcessor however i wanted to enable delay on message level and every time it tries to access the service. For example 1st try 3000ms delay and second time 6000ms so on until i try x number of time.
It would be great if you provide a few examples.
Could you please provide me some idea on this?
Well, it isn't possible the way you do that.
Message re-queuing is fully similar to transaction rallback, where the system returns to the state before an exception. So, definitely you can't modify a message to return to the queue.
Probably you have to take a look into Spring Retry project for the same reason and poll message from the queue only once and retries in memory until successful answer or retry policy exhausting. In the end you can just drop message from the queue or move it into DLQ.
See more info in the Reference Manual.
I added CustomeMessage delay exchange
#Bean
CustomExchange delayExchange() {
Map<String, Object> args = new HashMap<>();
args.put("x-delayed-type", "direct");
return new CustomExchange("delayed-exchange", "x-delayed-message", true, false, args);
}
Added MessagePostProcessor
if (message.getMessageProperties().getHeaders().get("x-delay") == null) {
message.getMessageProperties().setHeader("x-delay", 10000);
} else {
Integer integer = (Integer) message.getMessageProperties().getHeaders().get("x-delay");
if (integer < 60000) {
integer = integer + 10000;
message.getMessageProperties().setHeader("x-delay", integer);
}
}
First time it delays 30 seconds and adds 10seconds each time till it reaches 600 seconds.This should be configurable.
And finally send the message to
rabbitTemplate.convertAndSend("delayed-exchange", queueName,message, rabbitMQMessagePostProcessor);

multi threading - add more threads and continue the operation

ok here is my code :
For i = 0 To 10
Dim tTemp As Threading.Thread = New Threading.Thread(AddressOf dwnld)
tTemp.IsBackground = True
'tTemp.Start(geturl)
lThreads.Add(tTemp)
'MsgBox(lThreads.Item(i).ThreadState)
Next
I create a list of threads with 10 threads, assign them a function, properties and add them to the list.
'While ListBox2.Items.Count > 0
For i = 0 To lThreads.Count - 1
If (lThreads.Item(i).ThreadState = 12) Then
If (ListBox2.Items.Count > 0) Then
lThreads.Item(i).Start(geturl)
If (i = lThreads.Count - 1) Then
i = 0
End If
Else
Exit For
End If
'MsgBox(lThreads.Item(i).ThreadState)
ElseIf (lThreads.Item(i).ThreadState = 16) Then
lThreads.RemoveAt(i)
Dim tTemp As Threading.Thread = New Threading.Thread(AddressOf dwnld)
tTemp.IsBackground = True
lThreads.Add(tTemp)
If (i = lThreads.Count - 1) Then
i = 0
End If
End If
Next
What's happening is, i see the threads stop after the function dwnld is completed. So i first check for the state (12 means background and unstarted). On case 12 start the thread and in case 16 (stopped) remove that particular thread and add a different thread like i add 10 above.
Also there is a check when the i counter reaches last number, restart the whole loop by assigning i=0.
The program downloads some web pages, the url is passed from the listbox2. The geturl will pass the url and remove it from the list. So when the listbox is empty, exit the for loop.
But the above code is running for only 11 times and it does not restart. I tried using a lable and goto but it simple hangs.
Can anyone tell me what to do?
What i want is to maintain 10 threads to keep downloading the web pages and when the list is empty, exit the function.
Trying to manually manage your own custom pool of threads is probably the wrong approach here. Use ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem or preferrably the new Task class. The thread pooling is managed for you which greatly simplifies the code. Completely scrap this code and start over using one of the techniques I just mentioned. If you run into problems implementing either of these techniques then post a more specific question.
Micro-management of threads is, well, just a really bad idea. The moment I see anyone trying to maintain a list of threads that are continually created, terminated and destroyed I just know they are doomed. I have seen experienced professionals trying to do it - it's fun looking on, waiting for the inevitable spectacular failure after months of trying to fix the unfixable.
Thread pools are, typically, nothing of the sort. They are usually a pool of tasks - task class instances on a producer-consumer queue - that several threads feed off as and when they are free to do work. The work threads auto-manage themselves by getting new tasks themselves when they have finished with the old one - no need for any higher-level micro management.
Listen to #Brian - forget managing lists of threads, checking their state and all that gunge. It'll just make you ill. Go with ThreadPool.QUWI or Tasks.

getting the thread id of threads in the threadpool from outside threadprocessing method

I am implementing multi-threading concepts using thread-pooling to pick up messages from queues. There is a necessity that the id/number of the thread which picks up a particular message has to be accessed from outside the thread method. Supposes if there are three threads and they have to pick up 5 messages from the queue. the first thread picks up the first message processes it and it is released. meanwhile the second thread would have picked up some other message and would've started to process it(multi-threading).
Here from some other method, i want to know which thread actually picks up message1, and the consistency has to maintained not only inside the threading function but throughout the application(from outside the thread function also).
i have implemented multi-threading as follows
For m_intThread1 = 0 To m_stuTPConfig.intNumThreads - 1
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(New WaitCallback(AddressOf **MultiProcessMQ**), m_intThread1)
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000)
Next m_intThread1 'm_intThread
Public Shared Sub MultiProcessMQ(ByVal state As Object)
Dim objParentProcess As New ParentProcess
objParentProcess.ProcessThread(CType(state, String))
If Interlocked.Decrement(CInt(m_stuTPConfig.intNumThreads)) = 0 Then
m_asyncOpsAreDone.Set()
End If 'Interlocked.Decrement(CInt(m_stuTPConfig.intNumThreads)) = 0
End Sub 'MultiProcessMQ()
Public Sub ProcessThread(ByVal strThread As String)
intThrd = Convert.ToInt32(strThread)
Console.WriteLine("Parent Thread started " & strThread)
End Sub
How do i access the variable strThread From another method and maintain its consistency.This is required for logging purposes.
Thanks for formatting. We are using WCFMQAdapter services which is a for configuring the app in accordance with the input and output queues. once I host this service from ProcessThread the control goes to some other file, say a service.vb file wherein all the operations pertaining to the thread are performed and never comes back. The actual usage of threads here are for logging the processing details onto a file in the service.vb file. Now the PROCESSTHREAD method is called. till now the multithreading properties are maintained. once the service is hosted how to pass on these thread info to the service.vb. Or should there be a parent threading/child threading concept? And, if i obtain a threadid using managedThreadId, dynamic thread ids are generated. Are there any chances to obtain them and convert it into user managed ids. say, instead of thread 21,thread 44,thread66,thread89........ can we convert them like thread1, thread 2, thread 3, thread 4? Thanks in Advance :-)
You can use System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId to get a unique id for each thread. I'd use that to identify your threads.

Suppressing NServicebus Transaction to write errors to database

I'm using NServiceBus to handle some calculation messages. I have a new requirement to handle calculation errors by writing them the same database. I'm using NHibernate as my DAL which auto enlists to the NServiceBus transaction and provides rollback in case of exceptions, which is working really well. However if I write this particular error to the database, it is also rolled back which is a problem.
I knew this would be a problem, but I thought I could just wrap the call in a new transaction with the TransactionScopeOption = Suppress. However the error data is still rolled back. I believe that's because it was using the existing session with has already enlisted in the NServiceBus transaction.
Next I tried opening a new session from the existing SessionFactory within the suppression transaction scope. However the first call to the database to retrieve or save data using this new session blocks and then times out.
InnerException: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException
Message=Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the >operation or the server is not responding.
Finally I tried creating a new SessionFactory using it to open a new session within the suppression transaction scope. However again it blocks and times out.
I feel like I'm missing something obvious here, and would greatly appreciate any suggestions on this probably common task.
As Adam suggests in the comments, in most cases it is preferred to let the entire message fail processing, giving the built-in Retry mechanism a chance to get it right, and eventually going to the error queue. Then another process can monitor the error queue and do any required notification, including logging to a database.
However, there are some use cases where the entire message is not a failure, i.e. on the whole, it "succeeds" (whatever the business-dependent definition of that is) but there is some small part that is in error. For example, a financial calculation in which the processing "succeeds" but some human element of the data is "in error". In this case I would suggest catching that exception and sending a new message which, when processed by another endpoint, will log the information to your database.
I could see another case where you want the entire message to fail, but you want the fact that it was attempted noted somehow. This may be closest to what you are describing. In this case, create a new TransactionScope with TransactionScopeOption = Suppress, and then (again) send a new message inside that scope. That message will be sent whether or not your full message transaction rolls back.
You are correct that your transaction is rolling back because the NHibernate session is opened while the transaction is in force. Trying to open a new session inside the suppressed transaction can cause a problem with locking. That's why, most of the time, sending a new message asynchronously is part of the solution in these cases, but how you do it is dependent upon your specific business requirements.
I know I'm late to the party, but as an alternative suggestion, you coudl simply raise another separate log message, which NSB handles independently, for example:
public void Handle(DebitAccountMessage message)
{
var account = this.dbcontext.GetById(message.Id);
if (account.Balance <= 0)
{
// log request - new handler
this.Bus.Send(new DebitAccountLogMessage
{
originalMessage = message,
account = account,
timeStamp = DateTime.UtcNow
});
// throw error - NSB will handle
throw new DebitException("Not enough funds");
}
}
public void Handle(DebitAccountLogMessage message)
{
var messageString = message.originalMessage.Dump();
var accountString = message.account.Dump(DumpOptions.SuppressSecurityTokens);
this.Logger.Log(message.UniqueId, string.Format("{0}, {1}", messageString, accountString);
}