Allow rabbitmq to process current running message before shutdown - spring-boot

My application is spring boot micro service listening to a Rabbit MQ queue.
The queue receives messages from different sources.
The requirement is that when the application server is going down (this could happen because of many reasons, may be because we brought the site down, or we are deploying an updated software on to our application server) we would like the queue to process the current message. As of now, we lose the message that the queue is currently processing.
How can I achieve this?

The default shutdownTimeout is 5000ms; you can increase it.
You should not, however, lose any messages, it should be requeued (unless you are using AcknowledgeMode.NONE (which is generally a bad idea).

Related

Springboot AWS SQS application running on 2 servers

We are going to work on springboot application which will be deployed on two ECS containers to support the cluster environment. This application will accept the request and drop message into SQS. Another flow in the application should pick the message from queue and process it. As same application will be running on two different servers in cluster environment, I am not sure which server will pick the message from queue. How can I make sure that only one server picks up the message from queue. It could be either server.
Ordinary SQS queues do not even guarantee that a message only appears once on the queue - see AWS Standard SQS Queue docs
Using a reasonable value for visibility timeout, the time that a message can’t be seen by other consumers, vs the time it takes to consume a message should solve it.
Alternatively you can use an SQS FIFO queue but it’s much slower and can, in my experience, get stuck on a corrupt message.

How to clear messages in IBM MQ which are stuck for more than 5 mins?

I don't want to use message expiry as it has dependency on sending application and don't want to use pub/sub as well because if the applications don't take the messages it will fill up the filesystem etc. I don't want the messages to be piled up in the queue because application is down.
This setup is required so that there wont be any outage because of this queue and the application consuming it. Any advice?
CAPEXPRY allows the administrator to set message expiry without application changes. See https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSFKSJ_9.1.0/com.ibm.mq.ref.dev.doc/q097495_.htm

How to go about messages in Dead Letter Queue

We are using WebLogic 10.3.6.0 and IBM MQ 7.5.
Application design is to send messages to a dead letter queue (in WebLogic) on re-delivery. The re-delivery happens as the first delivery has failed due to some network issue or database data source failure.
My Client wants a way to browse the messages in the dead letter queue from the application GUI and pull them for processing when the network issue or data source issue has been resolved.
What is the best way to go about this?
I cam across QueueBrowser coupled with activemq or some other implementation. Is QueueBrowser possible with WebLogic? Please suggest on best ways to achieve this requirement.
Kindly pardon if my question is too naive. I am only a PL/SQL programmer.
Valerie is referring to the SYSTEM DLQ and application should never ever write to it. Application's should have there own DLQ.
i.e. If your application queue is called 'TEST.Q1' then your application DLQ should be called 'TEST.Q1.DLQ'.
There is a whole long list of MQ tools here to view messages and manage your MQ environment.
Is the application actually designed to write to the DLQ? If so, that is a very poor design. The DLQ is for the queue manager and MQ software to place messages which can not be delivered. The application should not be writing to the DLQ.
As for how to view messages on DLQ, that can be done with the MQ Explorer GUI. Or to write a script, use the DLQ handler (runmqdlq) with a rules table for processing messages.

Two consumers on same Websphere MQ JMS Queue, both receiving same message

I am working with someone who is trying to achieve a load-balancing behavior using JMS Queues with IBM Websphere MQ. As such, they have multiple Camel JMS consumers configured to read from the same Queue. Despite that this behavior is undefined according to the JMS spec (last time I looked anyway), they expect a sort of round-robin / load-balancing behavior. And, while the spec leaves this undefined, I'm led to believe that the normal behavior of Websphere MQ is to deliver the message to only one of the consumers, and that it may do some type of load-balancing. See here, for example: When multi MessageConsumer connect to same queue(Websphere MQ),how to load balance message-consumer?
But in this particular case, it appears that both consumers are receiving the same message.
Can anyone who is more of an expert with Websphere MQ shed any light on this? Is there any situation where this behavior is expected? Is there any configuration change that can alleviate this?
I'm leaning towards telling everyone here to use the native Websphere MQ clustering facility and go away from having multiple consumers pointing at the same Queue, but that will be a big change for them, so I'd love to discover a way to make this work.
Not that I'm a fan of relying on anything that's undefined, but if they're willing to rely on IBM specific behavior, I'll leave that up to them.
The only way for them to both receive the same messages are:
There are multiple copies of the message.
The apps are browsing the message without a lock, then circling back to delete it.
The apps are backing out a transaction and making the message available again.
The connection is severed before the app acknowledges the message.
Having multiple apps compete for messages in a queue is a recommended practice. If one app goes down the queue is still served. In a cluster this is crucial because the cluster will continue to direct messages to the un-served queue instance until it fills up.
If it's a Dev system, install SupportPac MA0W and tell it to trace just that one queue and you will be able to see exactly what is happening.
See the JMS spec in section 4.4. The provider must never deliver a second copy of an acknowledged message. Exception is made for session handling in 4.4.13 which I cover in #4 above. That's pretty unambiguous and part of the official spec so not an IBM-specific behavior.

JMS p2p failover pattern in order to guarantee delivery

Im a web developer ended up in some j2ee development (newbie). I sincerely need this theory confirmed.
I been given the privilege to deliver a message from our system (producer) to the SOA Enterprice service bus (consumer) when the user hits the save button. The information can not be missed or not delivered and the delivery order must be kept.
Environment:
Jboss eap 5.1 as the producer.
JNDI server is the ESB (maybe standard).
Jboss ESB as the consumer.
My weapon of choice is JMS, p2p, due to the asynchronous nature.
When the producer is abut to send the message some problems can occur:
ESB is down causing JNDI exception
Queue manager is for some reason not awake or wrongly configured. This should cause some JMS exception.
Network hickup, causing a JMS error.
So Im looking for some failover pattern. Here is my suggestion:
Add a internal JMS queue to which the message is initially added.
Add a MDB that listen to the internal queue and tries to send it to the target queue (ESB).
If failing in any way log fatal and send email to cool support people.
This should generate a reliable pattern where a message remains on the internal que until processed by the MDB.
Please advice.
Best Regards
ds
Well a 'temporary' queue is not a totally bad idea, but during the time from moving data from one queue to putting it on another you'll have a potential window of risk. Even though that window is close to nothing, what would happen if you got some failure right there and then? -You'd have to put the message back on the queue (and there you'd get into the problem with getting it in the correct order - nasty stuff!) or hold on to it in some way until you put it the other queue (which in turn can be cumbersome if you'd e g get into some failure-situaton.
A more stable solution would be to put data in a db with a queue-order column. You can then select your data in the correct order, send it to the new queue, and finally flag it as 'done' or something or even (better?) remove the data in the db.

Resources