I've come across a curious detail in the legacy integration solution based on WebSphere MQ 7.0.1.3 and WebSphere Message Broker 7.0.0.7. There are 2 message flows:
The 1st flow is a case of MQ Request-Reply pattern. After MQPut it has a MQGet node that gets the message by correlation ID from queue "MQ_BIS_IN".
The 2nd flow is a kind of a one-way router that starts with a MQInput node (without any filters) that listens on the queue "MQ_GW_IN".
Interestingly, "MQ_BIS_IN" is an alias for "MQ_GW_IN" queue. My first thought was that the 2 flows would interfere in a bad way, basically the "omnivorous" MQInput would ruin the Request-Reply thing. But they seem to somehow get along.
I am going to reproduce this configuration in a test environment to determine if their behaviour is stable under load. Nevertheless, does anybody know if there are some rules of precedence between concurrent read operation from the same queue? Does it matter that there's an alias to the queue?
Both the MQInput and the MQGet node can be configured to look for particular msgId's or correlation Id's only, or to pick up the items on the queue in a determined order, or only pick up complete groups of messages - so there doesn't need to be a conflict here.
Related
I have implemented the example from the RabbitMQ website:
RabbitMQ Example
I have expanded it to have an application with a button to send a message.
Now I started two consumer on two different computers.
When I send the message the first message is sent to computer1, then the second message is sent to computer2, the thrid to computer1 and so on.
Why is this, and how can I change the behavior to send each message to each consumer?
Why is this
As noted by Yazan, messages are consumed from a single queue in a round-robin manner. The behavior your are seeing is by design, making it easy to scale up the number of consumers for a given queue.
how can I change the behavior to send each message to each consumer?
To have each consumer receive the same message, you need to create a queue for each consumer and deliver the same message to each queue.
The easiest way to do this is to use a fanout exchange. This will send every message to every queue that is bound to the exchange, completely ignoring the routing key.
If you need more control over the routing, you can use a topic or direct exchange and manage the routing keys.
Whatever type of exchange you choose, though, you will need to have a queue per consumer and have each message routed to each queue.
you can't it's controlled by the server check Round-robin dispatching section
It decides which consumer turn is. i'm not sure if there is a set of algorithms you can pick from, but at the end server will control this (i think round robin algorithm is default)
unless you want to use routing keys and exchanges
I would see this more as a design question. Ideally, producers should create the exchanges and the consumers create the queues and each consumer can create its own queue and hook it up to an exchange. This makes sure every consumer gets its message with its private queue.
What youre doing is essentially 'worker queues' model which is used to distribute tasks among worker nodes. Since each task needs to be performed only once, the message is sent to only one node. If you want to send a message to all the nodes, you need a different model called 'pub-sub' where each message is broadcasted to all the subscribers. The following link shows a simple pub-sub tutorial
https://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/tutorial-three-python.html
I have one doubt during my work with JMS. As I know it's possible to create synchrous message consumer. However, I must launch it with a frequency, because of the fact that there is no listener. Next, to consume messages synchrously from a queue I can create a MDB and set the pool to 1. I think it is not a good solution.
My aim is to consume messages synchrously when they appear on the queue. From my point of view above mentioned solutions are not good:
1. Consumer which is launched from time to time.
2. MDB (asynchrous normally) and pool is set to 1.
Are there any solutions for my purpose?
Not sure why you don't like MDBs... but if you want to avoid them, you could use the Spring JMS listener:
http://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/current/spring-framework-reference/html/jms.html
Say I have one JMS message FooCompleted
{"businessId": 1,"timestamp": "20140101 01:01:01.000"}
and another JMS message BazCompleted
{"businessId": 1,"timestamp": "20140101 01:02:02.000"}
The use case is that I want some action triggered when both messages have been received for the business id in question - essentially a join point of reception of the two messages. The two messages are published on two different queues and order between reception of FooCompleted and BazCompleted may change. In reality, I may need to have join of reception of several different messages for the businessId in question.
The naive approach was that to store the reception of the message in a db and check if message(s) its dependent join arm(s) have been received and only then kick off the action desired. Given that the problem seems generic enough, we were wondering if there is a better way to solve this.
Another thought was to move messages from these two queues into a third queue on reception. The listener on this third queue will be using a special avataar of DefaultMessageListenerContainer which overrides the doReceiveAndExecute to call receiveMessage for all outstanding messages in the queue and adding messages back to the queue whose all dependent messages have not yet arrived - the remaining ones will be acknowledged and hence removed. Given that the quantum of messages will be low, probing the queue over and adding messages again should not be a problem. The advantage would be avoiding the DB dependency and the associated scaffolding code. Wanted to see if there is something glaringly bad with this
Gurus, please critique and point out better ways to achieve this.
Thanks in advance!
Spring Integration with a JMS message-driven adapter and an aggregator with custom correlation and release strategies, and a peristent (JDBC) message store will provide your first solution without writing much (or any) code.
What can be the best way to aggregate messages from many different sources (actually queues/topics) into a single queue/topic and then consume it. I am trying to design an application to receive messages from different topics in JMS using weblogic.
You could write your own "aggregator" as a stand-alone Java application:
For each queue/topic have a reader in its own thread.
Each reader sends its received message again on a "aggregate queue".
Have another thread to listen on the "aggregate queue".
As a variation, you could use a JVM Queue (like java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue) as the "aggregate queue". This is faster, does not require another MQ queue, does not need network bandwidth, but it's not persistent.
Another idea is to use a "Message driven bean (MDB)" for each incoming queue/topic:
Again, each of these MDBs just reads the message and resends it to the "aggregate queue".
Have another MDB listening on the "aggregate queue".
A few suggestions on quality requirements. I belive you have to consider them.
They will be highly relate with your technical solution.
is that message loss acceptable?
client ack could be considered.
e.g. A memory queue sit in middle, e.g. incoming queue1...n -> ArrayBlockingQueue in memory -> outgoing queue. The data in the ArrayBlockingQueue , will lost when app crash.
is that message duplicate acceptable for the single outgoing queue?
I would suggest yes.
Set applicable level PossibleDuplicateFlag to make the client aware of that.
how fast the incoming messages per second on the diff incoming queue?
one queue session has only a uniqe thread. Performance has to be considered in advance.
I have a MDB which listens to WebSphere MQ. It does not picks up the messages in the order that has been received by the Queue. How can i make it read it in that order? Is it possible? Should i not use a MDB.
In general, WMQ delivers messages in the order that they were received. However, several things can impact that...
If the queue is set to priority instead of FIFO delivery and messages arrive in different priorities, they will be delivered "out of order".
Distinguish between order produced and order delivered. If the messages are produced on a remote QMgr and there are multiple paths to the local QMgr, messages may arrive out of order.
Difference in persistence - if messages are produced on a remote QMgr and are of different persistences, the non-persistent messages may arrive faster than the persistent ones, especially with channel NPMSPEED(FAST) set.
Multiple readers/writers - Any dependency on sequence implies a single producer sending to a single consumer over a single path. Any redundancy in producers, consumers or paths between them can result in messages delivered out of sequence.
Syncpoint - To preserve sequence, ALL messages must be written and consumed under syncpoint or else ALL must be written and consumed outside of syncpoint.
Selectors - These specifically are intended to deliver messages out of order with respect to the context of all messages in the queue.
Message groups - Retrieval of grouped messages typically waits until the entire group is present. If groups are interleaved, messages are delivered out of sequence.
DLQ - if the target queue fills, messages may be delivered to the DLQ. As the target queue is drained, messages start going back there. With a queue near capacity, messages can alternate between the target queue and DLQ.
So when an MDB is receiving messages out of order any of these things, or even several of them in combination, may be at cause. Either eliminate the dependency on message sequence (best choice) or else go back over the design and reconcile all the factors that may lead to out-of-sequence processing.
To add to T.Rob's list, MDBs use the application server WorkManager to schedule message delivery, so message order is also dependent on the order in which the WorkManager starts Work items. This is outside the control of WMQ. If you limit the MDB ServerSessionPool depth to one, then this limit is removed as there will only ever be one in-flight Work instance, but at the cost of reducing maximum throughput.
If you're running in WebSphere application server, then non-ASF mode with ListenerPorts can preserve message order subject to some transactional/backout caveats. There's a support technote here:
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21446463