I wonder how to tall a channel or queue or RMQ server to keep only one, latest message from each publisher? Is there in RMQ any way to get this done with out RMQ server modification -> recompilation?
Related
We have observed the following behavior of RabbitMQ and are trying to understand if it is correct and how to resolve it.
Scenario:
A (persistent) message is delivered into a durable queue
The (single) Consumer (Spring-AMQP) takes the message and starts processing => Message goes from READY to UNACK
Now the broker is shut down => Client correctly reports "Channel shutdown"
The consumer finishes the processing, but can not acknowledge the message as the broker is still down
Broker is started again => Client reconnects
As a result, one message remains unack'ed forever (or until the client is restarted).
Side note: In the Rabbit Admin UI, I can see that two channels are existing now. The "dead" one that was created before the broker restart, containing the unacked message and a new one that is healthy.
Is this behavior expected to be like that? It seems to me "correct" in the way, that RabbitMQ can not know after the broker restart, whether the message processing was completed or not. But what solution would exist than to get that unacked message back into the queue and to heal the system without restarting the consumer process?
The RabbitMQ team monitors this mailing list and only sometimes answers questions on StackOverflow.
Is this behavior expected to be like that? It seems to me "correct" in the way, that RabbitMQ can not know after the broker restart, whether the message processing was completed or not.
Yes, you are observing expected behavior. RabbitMQ will re-enqueue the message once it determines that the consumer is really dead. Since your consumer re-connects with what must be the same consumer tag as before, it is up to that process to ack or nack the message.
I have a problem using direct addressing with MCollective via ActiveMQ 5.8. (http://docs.puppetlabs.com/mcollective/deploy/middleware/activemq.html)
The problem arises when one of the nodes subscribed to the nodes queue via MCollective crashes and doesn't unsubscribe. When the host boots and subscribes again, there are now two subscribers with the same identity, because ActiveMQ doesn't recognize that the pre-crash one is no longer listening. This is a problem with direct addressing because it goes in the queue, ActiveMQ sends the message to only one subscriber, and it always seems to pick the one that's not listening; so the message is never delivered to the actual node. I can observe this happening if I have ActiveMQ log the message frames.
This may be related to the ActiveMQ concept of a "durable subscriber" (where a subscriber of the same identity unsubscribes any existing one) but I don't have any idea how that is configured from MCollective.
What I want is that either the new subscriber bumps the old, or that the dead subscriber is removed when a message is sent to it and the connection is dead (with Wireshark I can see the packets aren't ACKed, instead an ICMP packet returns "Destination unreachable").
Apparently, according to http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/23365, the solution is to use MCollective 2.3 (I was using 2.2) and Stomp 1.1 keepalives.
Is there a way to monitor messages in ActiveMQ JMS topic and most importantly delete older messages, e.g. delete messages older than a month ago.
I am using Apache Camel to build ActiveMQ Connection and JMS topics.
There is a header within sent JMS messages called time to live, which when surpassed will remove the messages from the queue.
It is possible to achieve the same affects at the broker level.
Further information can be found here http://activemq.apache.org/manage-durable-subscribers.html
I use ActiveMQ as a job dispatcher. Which means one master sends job messages to ActiveMQ, and multiple slaves grab job messages from ActiveMQ and process them. When slaves finish one job, they send a message with job_id back to ActiveMQ.
However, slaves are unreliable. If one slave doesn't respond before a period of time, we can assume the slave is down, and try redeliver the sent job message.
Are there any good ideas to realize this re-delivery?
Typically a consumer handles redelivery so that it can maintain message order while a message appears as inflight on the broker. This means that redelivery is limited to a single consumer unless that consumer terminates. In this way the broker is unaware of redelivery.
In ActiveMQ v5.7+ you have the option of using broker side redelivery, it is possible to have the broker redeliver a message after a delay using a resend. This is implemented by a broker plugin that handles dead letter processing by redelivery via the scheduler. This is useful when total message order is not important and where through put and load distribution among consumers is. With broker redelivery, messages that fail delivery to a given consumer can get immediately re-dispatched.
See the ActiveMQ documentation for an example of setting this up in the configuration file.
I've got some trouble understanding the confirm of RabbitMQ, I see the following explanation from RabbitMQ:
Notes
The broker loses persistent messages if it crashes before said
messages are written to disk. Under certain conditions, this causes
the broker to behave in surprising ways. For instance, consider this
scenario:
a client publishes a persistent message to a durable queue
a client consumes the message from the queue (noting that the message is persistent and the queue durable), but doesn't yet ack it,
the broker dies and is restarted, and
the client reconnects and starts consuming messages.
At this point, the client could reasonably assume that the message
will be delivered again. This is not the case: the restart has caused
the broker to lose the message. In order to guarantee persistence, a
client should use confirms. If the publisher's channel had been in
confirm mode, the publisher would not have received an ack for the
lost message (since the consumer hadn't ack'd it and it hadn't been
written to disk).
Then I am using this http://hg.rabbitmq.com/rabbitmq-java-client/file/default/test/src/com/rabbitmq/examples/ConfirmDontLoseMessages.java to do some basic test and verify the confirm, but get some weird results:
The waitForConfirmsOrDie method doesn't block the producer, which is different from my expectation, I suppose the waitForConfirmsOrDie will block the producer until all the messages have been ack'd or one of them is nack'd.
I remove the channel.confirmSelect() and channel.waitForConfirmsOrDie() from publisher, and change the consumer from auto ack to manual ack, I publish all messages to the queue and consume messages one by one, then I stop the rabbitmq server during the consuming process, what I expect now is the left messages will be lost after the rabbitmq server is restarted, because the channel is not in confirm mode, but I still see all other messages in the queue after the server restart.
Since I am new to RabbitMQ, can anyone tells me where is my problem of the confirm understanding?
My understanding is that "Channel Confirmation" is for Broker confirms it successfully got the message from producer, regardless of consumer ack this message or not. Depending on the queue type and message deliver mode, see http://www.rabbitmq.com/confirms.html for details,
the messages are confirmed when:
it decides a message will not be routed to queues
(if the mandatory flag is set then the basic.return is sent first) or
a transient message has reached all its queues (and mirrors) or
a persistent message has reached all its queues (and mirrors) and been persisted to disk (and fsynced) or
a persistent message has been consumed (and if necessary acknowledged) from all its queues
Old question but oh well..
I publish all messages to the queue and consume messages one by one, then I stop the rabbitmq server during the consuming process, what I expect now is the left messages will be lost after the rabbitmq server is restarted, because the channel is not in confirm mode, but I still see all other messages in the queue after the server restart.
This is actually how it should work, IF the persistence is enabled. If the server crashes or something else goes wrong, the messages cannot be confirmed, and thus, won't be removed from the queue.
Messages will only be removed from the queue if they are confirmed to be handled, or the broker didn't yet write it to memory or disk before the server crashed.
Confirming and acknowledging can be set off if wanted, and the producer won't be waiting for the acks. I cannot find the exact command for it right now, but it does exist.
More on the acks and confirms: https://www.rabbitmq.com/reliability.html