I am currently working on Apache Kafka using go/golang confluent library. I have some doubts regarding consumer and its APIs.
I am using pause and resume APIs of the library and doing manual commits. Let's say, I send 100 messages and without committing, I paused consumer and resume it afterward. I notice it didn't consume those 100 messages again but it started consuming the latest messages. Is this an expected behavior? If yes, is there a way to consume those 100 messages again.
When I am resuming the consumers, after some processing, I am doing manual commit. I noticed the return offset committed is -1001 for a partition. I am not able to understand why it is happening and what it means? Did I lose all the data or the commit failed?
Can someone please explain to me auto.offset.reset - latest and earliest?
Thanks
Related
I have a question about some strange behaviour of consumer.
Recently we had strange situation on production environment. Two consumers on two different microservices were stuck at some messages. The first one was holding 20 messages from rabbitMQ queue and the second one 2 messages and they weren't processing them. These messages were visible as Unacked in RabbitMQ for two days. They went back to Ready state just when that two microservices were restarted. At that time when consumers took this messages the whole program was processing thousands messages per hour, so basically our Saga and all consumers were working. When these messages went back to Ready state they were processed in one second after that so I don't think that it's problem with them.
The messages are published by Saga to Exchange and besides these two stucked consumers we have also EventLogger consumer subscribed to all messages and this EventLogger processed this 22 messages normally without any problems (from his own queue). Also we have connected Application Insights to consumers and there is no information about receiving these 22 messages by these two consumers (there are information about receiving it by EventLogger).
The other day we had the same issue with one message on test environment.
Recently we updated version of MassTransit in our project from version 6.2.0 to 7.1.6 and before that we didn't notice any similar issues with consumers but maybe it's just coincidence. We also have retry, redelivery, circuit breaker and in memory outbox mechanisms but I don't think that's problem with them because the consumer didn't even start to process these 22 messages.
Do you have any suggestions what could happened to this consumers?
Usually when a consumer doesn't even start to consume the message once it has been delivered to MassTransit by RabbitMQ, it could be an issue resolving the consumer from the container, such as a dependency to another backing service (database, log server, file, network connection, device, etc.).
The message remains unacknowledged on the broker because the transport/delivery mechanism to the consumer is waiting for a resource to become available. If there isn't anything in the logs for that time period indicating an issue with a resource, it's hard to know what could have blocked those messages from being consumed. The fact that they were ultimately consumed once the services were restarted seems to indicate the message content itself was fine.
Monitoring the lack of message consumption (and likely an associated queue depth increase) would give an indication that the situation has occurred. If it happens again, I'd increase the logging detail levels to see if the issue occurs again and can then be identified.
I am relatively new to JMS and have encountered a weird problem implementing my first real application. I'm desporate for any help or advice.
Background: I use AtiveMQ (java) as the message broker with non-transacted, non-persitent queues.
The Design: I have a straight forward producer/consumer system based around a single queue. A number of nodes(currently 2) place messages onto/ consume from the queue. Selectors are used to filter which messages a node recieves.
The Problem: The producer succesfully places its items on to the queue (i have verified they are there using the web interface) however the consumers remain blocked and do not read them. Only when i close the JMS connection in the producer do the consumers jump into life and consume the messages as expected.
This bevaior seems very weird to me, surely you shouldnt have to completely hang up the producer connection for the consumers to be able to read from the queue. I must have made a mistake somewhere(possibly with sessions) but the at the moment the number of things that could be wrong is to large and i have no idea what would cause this behaviour.
Any hints as to a solution, the cause of the problem or just how to continue debugging would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your time,
P.S If you requrie any additional information i am happy to provide it
Hard to say without seeing the code, but it sounds like the producer is transacted. You should not have to close the producer in order for the consumers to receive a message but a transacted producer won't send it messages until you call commit. Other things to check is that the connection has been started. Also if you have many consumers you should look at the prefetch setting to ensure that one consumer doesn't hog all the messages, setting to prefetch of 1 might be needed, but hard to say without further insight into your use case.
We have a situation in front of us and its explained as below:
We have durable subscriber subscribed to a topic. This durable subscriber is a perl script which is run by a daemon.
The perl script uses stomp to connect to the broker.
The perl script wakes up every 5 mins, checks for messages in the topic and processes them in a batch by pre-fetching the messages.
The subscriber uses a client acknowledgement and acknowledges only the last message of the batch.
We are using AMQ 5.5 with kahaDB persistence.
Now what we see is,
Even though the messages are processed in a batch and the last message is acknowledged the inflight count does not come down.
Enqueue count, Dequeue count and Dispatch count do not match.
The journal files are not getting cleaned up.
I do understand that the journal files would be cleaned up once the references to the messages are lost or removed (i.e. the messages are consumed). But does it have to do anything with the various count attributes I see on the topic?
Also should I expect the inflight count to come down to 0 if client crashes and then consumes all messages after come back live?
Please let me know if there could be any other reason that could cause the journal files to stay back.
Thank you
Hari
Actually I was disconnecting immediately after sending the ack.
Waiting for ack's receipt before disconnecting solved the issue.
The logic flow is like this
A message is sent to an input queue
A ProcessorMDB's onMessage() is invoked. Within this method several operations/validations are done
In case of a poison message(msg that application code cannot handle) a RuntimeException is thrown.
This should rollback the transaction. We are seeing evidence in the log file.
There is a backout threshold defined with a backout queue name
once threshold is reached, the message is sent to backout queue
But immediately it starts going back and forth between the input queue and backout queue.
We are using MQMON tool to observe this weird behavior. It continues for ever almost even after the app server(where MDB is running) is shutdown.
We are using Weblogic 10.3.1 and WebSphere MQ 6.02
Any help will be much appreciated, looks like we are running out of ideas.
This sounds like a syncpoint issue. If the QMgr were to issue a COMMIT when a message is requeued inside of a unit of work it would affect all messages under syncpoint inside of that thread. This would cause serious problems if an application had performed several PUT or GET calls prior to hitting the poison message. Rather than issue a COMMIT outside of the program's control, the QMgr just leaves the message on the backout queue inside the unit of work and waits for the program to issue the COMMIT. This can lead to some unexpected behavior such as what you are seeing where a message lands back on the input queue.
If another message is in the queue behind the "bad" one and it is processed successfully by the same thread, everything works out perfectly. The app issues a COMMIT on the new message and this also affects the poison message on the Backout Queue. However if the thread were to exit uncleanly (without an explicit disconnect or COMMIT) then the transaction is rolled back and the poison message is returned to the input queue.
The usual way of dealing with this is that the next good message (or batch of messages if transactions are batched) in the input queue will force the COMMIT. However in some cases where the owning thread gets no new work (perhaps it was performing a GET by Correlation ID) there is nothing to push the bad message through. In these cases, it is important to make sure that the application issues a COMMIT before ending. One way to do this is to write the code to perform the GET by CORRELID with a wait interval. If the wait interval expires, the application would get a return code of 2033 and then issue a COMMIT before closing the thread. If the reply message is legitimately late for whatever reason, the COMMIT will have no effect. But if the message arrived and had been backed out and requeued, the COMMIT will cause it to stay in the Backout Queue.
One way to see exactly what is going on is to run a trace against the queue in question. You can use the built-in trace function - strmqtrc - which has a few more options in V7 than does the V6 version. However if you want very fine grained control you can use the trace exit in SupportPac MA0W. With MA0W you can see exactly what API calls are made by the program and those made on its behalf.
[EDIT] Updating the response with some info from the PMR:
The following is from the WMQ V7 Infocenter:
MessageConsumers are single threaded below the Session level, and
any requeuing of poison messages
takes place within the current unit of
work. This does not affect the
operation of the application, however
when poison messages are requeued
under a transacted or
Client_acknowledge Session, the
requeue action itself will not be
committed until the current unit of
work is committed by the application
code or, if appropriate, the
application container code."
Hence, if it is important for the customer to have poison messages
committed immediately after they are
backed out, it is recommended they
either make use of the Application
Server Facilities
(ConnectionConsumer) which can commit
the message immediately, or
another mechanism to move poison
messages from the queue.
Here is the link to this information in the V6 and V7 Information Centers. Since you are using the V6 client so you would want to refer to the V6 Infocenter. Note that with the V6 client, there is no mention in the Infocenter of ASF being able to commit the poison message immediately, even when using a ConnectionConsumer. The way I read it, this means you probably will need to upgrade to the V7 client to get the behavior you are looking for. Will be interested to see if the PMR results in a similar recommendation.
I have an application which tries to subscribes to a lot of different topics.
The server side publishes a lot of messages through these topics and as soon as the application starts subscribing, it receives so many messages that the application cannot even reach the end of the subscription function.
It seems that the OnMessage Listener is flooded so much (the listener is the class which is trying to subscribe itself ot all the topics).
So basically is there a way to stop the reception of messages until I have subscribed to all of the topics? Or am I missing something there?
The thread trying to subsscribe to all of the topics never get the processor again.
(If the server is down, the subscription is fine since it does not receive anything so it does not lose the processing power..)
Thank you in advance.
Paul.
You could try lower the prefetch limit of the consumers, this would prevent the broker from attempting to dispatch so many messages when they are created which should help reduce the flooding issue you are seeing.
Here's some documentation that might help.
http://activemq.apache.org/what-is-the-prefetch-limit-for.html
Tim -
www.fusesource.com