This is similar to this other question but with a bit of a twist: I read in the specification that the message-id for AMQP messages should be set by the application itself, so in theory I could use that to guarantee a certain degree of uniqueness, right?
My main question is now: In what scope is that message-id garantueed to be unique? For the messages currently enqueued inside a specific queue? Over all queues? Over the universe? :-)
And is this behaviour standardized? I plan to use RabbitMQ here, but it would be nice to have something not vendor specifc :-)
Thanks.
Another suggestion is according to the dump pipes - smart endpoints school of thought.
You could handle uniqueness in your application, using some sort of shared state.
We had the same problem when switching from Gearman to RabbitMQ. We use memcached to keep track of unique message ID's posted and consumers drop messages for which the message ID is already stored in memcache (duplicates). You could also check memcache before putting it on the queue altogether.
This frees you from using this feature in your message bus layer (so you can more easily switch between brokers, also those who do not guarantee uniqueness)
Message Id is application-specific only and may be not unique at all. You have to take care of uniqueness by yourself.
Related
I am looking to replace an in-house key-value store and dispatch system and I keep hearing that RabbitMQ may be a solution.
I understand that sends and receives messages using queues, and that these events are triggered by producers creating messages, and consumers receiving them.
But what happens if a consumer is created after a message was sent? Can the consumer ask the queue what its last message was? If not, do I need to include some sort of database to store these messages? Or am I looking for some other technology?
A use case is that I want a GUI to get/set parameters that are used by other apps on a local network. On initialization, the GUI needs to know what the last values were.
In an attempt to answer my own question, it may be that RabbitMQ is not what I am looking for. I may want to instead use Kafka which stores its latest key:value pair in a table. Or I may want to use Redis. What do you think?
Thank you for your assistance.
I think I found a satisfactory answer to my question. I'm looking to create a request-reply model, which RabbitMQ is quite capable of handling. Upon opening the GUI, it sends a request to some other process for some variable, stored either in memory or in a database. That process responds with the requested data. Easy enough.
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'm looking for a way to buffer messages received by the exchange as long as there is at least one queue bind to that exchange.
Is it supported by RabbitMQ?
Maybe there are some workarounds (I didn't find any).
EDIT
My use case:
I've got one data producer (which reads real-time data from an external system)
I've got one fanout exchange which receives data from the producer
On system startup, there might be no consumer, but after a few moments, there should be at least one which creates his own queue and binds it to the exchange from 2.
The problem is this short time between step 2. and 3. where there are no queues bound to the exchange created in step 1.
Of course, it's an edge case and after system initialization queues and exchanges are bound and everything works as expected.
Why queues and bindings has to be created by consumers (not by the producer)? Because I need a flexible setup where I can add consumers without any changes in other components code (e.g. producer).
EDIT 2
I'm processing the output from another system which stores both real-time and historical data. There are the cases where I want to read historical data first (on initialization) and then continue to handle real-time data.
I may mislead you by saying that there are multiple consumers. In the case where I need a buffer on exchange there is only one consumer (which writes everything to time series DB as it appears in queue).
The RabbitMQ team monitors this mailing list and only sometimes answers questions on StackOverflow.
Why queues and bindings has to be created by consumers (not by the producer)?
Queues and bindings can be created by producers or consumers or both. The requirement is that the exact same arguments are used when creating them if a client application tries to "re-create" a queue or binding. If different arguments are used, a channel-level error will happen.
As you have found, if a producer publishes to an exchange that can't route messages, they will be lost. Olivier's suggestion to use an alternate exchange is a good one, but I recommend you have your producers create queues and bindings as well.
If you mean to avoid throwing away messages because there is no destination configured for it, yes.
You should look at alternate exchange.
This assume that before (or when) you start (or when), the alternate exchange is created (would typically go for fanout) and a queue is binded to it (let's call it notroutedq).
So the messages are not lost, they will be stored in notroutedq.
From there you can possibly setup a mechanism that would reprocess messages in that queue - reinjecting them into the main exchange most likely - once a given time has passed or when a binding has been added to your main exchange.
-- EDIT --
Thanks for the updated info.
Could you indicate how long typically you'd expect the past messages to be useful to the consumers?
In your description, you mention real-time data and possibly multiple consumers coming and going. Based on that, I'm not sure how much of the data kept in the notroutedq would be of value, and with which frequency you'd expect to resend them to the consumers.
The cases I had with alternate exchange where mostly focused on identifying missing bindings, so that one could easily correct the bindings and reprocess the messages without loss.
If the number of consumers varies through time and the data content is real-time, I'd wonder a bit about the benefit of keeping the data.
Before a consumer nacks a message, is there any way the consumer can modify the message's state so that when the consumer consumes it upon redelivery, it sees that changed state. I'd rather not reject + reenqueue new message, but please let me know if that's the only way to accomplish this.
My goal is to determine how many times specific messages are being redelivered. I see two ways of doing this:
(1) On the message itself as described above. The message would be a container of basic stats and the application payload message.
(2) In some external storage. We would uniquely identify the message by the message id that we set.
I know 2 is possible, but my question is if 1 is possible.
There is no way to do (1) like you want. You would need to change the message, thus the message would become another message. If you want to do something like that (and it's possible that you meant this with I'd rather not reject + reenqueue new message) - you should ACK the message, increment one field in it and publish it again (again, maybe this is what you meant when you said reenqueue it). So your message payload would have some ID, counter, and again (obviously different) payload that is the content.
Definitvly much better way is (2) for multiple reasons:
it does not interfere with business logic, that is this diagnostic part is isolated
you are leaving re-queueing to rabbitmq (as you are supposed to do), meaning that you are not worrying about losing messages and handling some message meta info which has no use for you business logic
it's actually supposed to be used - the ACKing and NACKing, that's why it's in the AMQP specification
since you do need the number of how many times specific messages have been redelivered, you have it somewhere externally, meaning that it's independent of (rabbitmq's) message persistence, lifetime, potentially queue durability mirroring etc
Even if this question was marked as solved some time ago, I want to mention that there is a way at least for the redelivery. It might be integrated after the original answer. There is a different type of queues in RabbitMQ called Quorum queues.
Quorum queues offer the option to set redelivery limit:
Quorum queues support poison message handling via a redelivery limit. This feature is currently unique to Quorum queues.
In order to archive this, RabbitMQ is counting the numbers of deliveries in the header. The header attribute is called: x-delivery-count
I've been looking at using Redis Pub/Sub as a replacement to RabbitMQ.
From my understanding Redis's pub/sub holds a persistent connection to each of the subscribers, and if the connection is terminated, all future messages will be lost and dropped on the floor.
One possible solution is to use a list (and blocking wait) to store all the message and pub/sub as just a notification mechanism. I think this gets me most of the way there, but I still have some concerns about the failure cases.
what happens when a subscriber dies, and comes back online, how should it process all it's pending messages?
when a malformed message comes though the system, how do you handle those exceptions? DeadLetter Queue?
is there a standard practice to implementing a retry policy?
When a subscriber (consumer) dies, your list will continue to grow until the client returns. Your producer could trim the list (from either side) once it reaches a specific limit, but that is something you would need to handle at the application level. If you include a timestamp within each message, your consumer can then act on the age of a message, assuming you have application logic you want to enforce on message age.
I'm not sure how a malformed message would enter the system, as the connection to Redis is usually TCP with the its integrity assurances. But if this happens, perhaps due to a bug in message encoding at the producer layer, you could provide a general mechanism for handling errors by keeping a queue-per-producer that received consumer's exception messages.
Retry policies will depend greatly on your application needs. If you need 100% assurance that a message has been received and processed, then you should consider using Redis transactions (MULTI/EXEC) to wrap the work done by a consumer, so you can ensure that a client doesn't remove a message unless it has completed its work. If you need explicit acknowlegement, then you could use an explicit ACK message on a queue dedicated to the producer process(es).
Without knowing more about your application needs, it's hard to know how to choose wisely. Generally, if your messages require full ACID protection, then you probably also need to use redis transactions. If your messages are only meaningful when they are timely, then transactions may not be needed. It sounds as though you can't tolerate dropped messages, so your approach of using a list is good. If you need to implement a priority queue for your messages, you can use the sorted set (the Z-commands) to store your messages, using their priority as the score value, along with a polling consumer.
If you want a pub/sub system where subscribers won't lose messages when they die, consider using Redis Streams instead of Redis Pub/sub.
Redis Streams have their own architecture and pros/cons to Redis Pub/sub. With Redis Streams, a subscriber can issue the command:
the last message I received was X, now give me the next message;
if there is no new message, then wait for one to arrive.
Antirez's article linked above is a good intro to Redis streams with more info.
What I did is use a sorted set using the timestamp as the score and the key to the data as the member value. I use the score from the last item to retrieve the next few ones and then get the keys. Once the work is done I wrap both the zrem and the del in a MULTI/EXEC transaction.
Essentially what Edward said, but with the twist of storing the keys in the sorted set, as my messages can be pretty big.
Hope this helps!