I have Queue A. I have used this in one of my message flow which is up and running. I want to know the number of message dropped in to the queue A on particular day or time interval.
Kindly help me in finding out this.
Please have a look at the product manuals, in particular:
Queue statistics information tells how to enable queue statistics and ensure that you are collecting all the relevant data.
Displaying accounting and statistics information which explains, well, pretty much what the title says.
And to keep this on-topic for Stack Overflow, check out the Statistics messages format page which tells you how to programmatically access the queue stats messages. By writing your own code to collect the messages, you can store them to a database, save them off to a file, slice and dice the numbers for pie charts, whatever.
You did not mention which version of MQ that you are using and that is usually important. However, all modern versions of MQ have some queue stats instrumentation. The links I provided are from the v8.0 Knowledge Center.
Related
According to the documentation here: https://github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Engine one is able to do pub/sub using maps. This allows one to create a construct similar to topics that are available in middleware such as Tibco, 29W, Kafka and use that as a way of sending events across processes. Is this a recommended usage of chronicle map? What kind of latency can I expect if both publisher and subscriber stay in the same machine?
My second question is, how can this be extended to send messages across machines? How does this work with enterprise TCP replication?
My requirement is to create thousands of topics and use them to communicate across processes running in different machines (in a LAN). Each of these topics would be written by a single source and read by multiple readers running in same or different machines. If the source of a particular topic dies, that source's replica would start writing to the topic and listeners will continue to receive messages. These messages need not be stored for replay.
Is this a recommended usage of chronicle map?
Yes, you can use engine to support event notification across a machine. However, if you want lowest latencies you might need to send a notification via Queue and keep the latest value in a map.
What kind of latency can I expect if both publisher and subscriber stay in the same machine?
It depends on your use case esp the size of the data (in maps case the number of entries as well) The Latency for Map in Engine is around 30 - 100 us, however the latency for Queue is around 2 - 5 us.
My second question is, how can this be extended to send messages across machines?
For this you need our licensed product but the code is the same.
Each of these topics would be written by a single source and read by multiple readers running in same or different machines. If the source of a particular topic dies, that source's replica would start writing to the topic and listeners will continue to receive messages.
Most likely, the simplest solution is to have a Map where each topic is a different key. This will send the latest value for that topic to the consumers.
If you need to recorded every event, a Queue is likely to be a better choice. If you don't need to retain the data for long, you can use a very sort file rotation.
I am using ActiveMQ and want to generate alerts for messages which are sitting int the queue for very long time. I looked at "Advisory Message" feature but it has no such provision. It is very important for me to use a solution which does not add too much overhead on AMQ.
Note:This requirement is very different from alerts when message moves to DLQ after expiry.
The only means of reviewing what is in a Queue really is to browse it and the broker will place limitations on how far into the contents of the queue you can browse.
A message broker is not a database and you should not try to treat as such. If you have concerns about things remaining on a queue for to long then explicit expiration is your most effective tool.
You can build you own tooling to track the advisories around message enqueue and dequeue but you'd just end up needing to persist that information to make it effective so going back and reevaluating why you need to do this and what might be a better choice of architecture might be appropriate.
If you insist on want to audit the contents of the Queues then you'd want to look at configuration for max browse page size to try and let you get further into the Queue on a browse but depending on depth this probably won't get you everything you want.
I want to read messages from JMS MQ or In-memory message store based on count.
Like I want to start reading the messages when the message count is 10, until that i want the message processor to be idle.
I want this to be done using WSO2 ESB.
Can someone please help me?
Thanks.
I'm not familiar with wso2, but from an MQ perspective, the way to do this would be to trigger the application to run once there are 10 messages on the queue. There are trigger settings for this, specifically TRIGTYPE(DEPTH).
To expand on Morag's answer, I doubt that WS02 has built-in triggers that would monitor the queue for depth before reading messages. I suspect it just listens on a queue and processes messages as they arrive. I also doubt that you can use MQ's triggering mechanism to directly execute the flow conveniently based on depth. So although triggering is a great answer, you need a bit of glue code to make that work.
Conveniently, there's a tutorial that provides almost all the information necessary to do this. Please see Mission:Messaging: Easing administration and debugging with circular queues for details. That article has the scripts necessary to make the Q program work with MQ triggering. You just need to make a couple changes:
Instead of sending a command to Q to delete messages, send a command to move them.
Ditch the math that calculates how many messages to delete and either move them in batches of 10, or else move all messages until the queue drains. In the latter case, make sure to tell Q to wait for any stragglers.
Here's what it looks like when completed: The incoming messages land on some queue other than the WS02 input queue. That queue is triggered based on depth so that the Q program (SupportPac MA01) copies the messages to the real WS02 input queue. After the messages are copied, the glue code resets the trigger. This continues until there are less than 10 messages on the queue, at which time the cycle idles.
I got it by pushing the message to db and get as per the count required as in this answer of me take a look at my answer
One option for a Messaging Provider is a Message Queue, which provides FIFO ordering, i.e. Queue. Why would the ordering of messages be important? I wonder if is it because of the priority of the messages or anything similar to that. i would appreciate if anyone could explain with example.
Your answer is right - logically some operations are interdependent and you must maintain the order of calls.
But I think that there is an even more important purely technical aspect to this that I want to point out: You need to know the order to be able to achieve ACID transactions.
Take the following scenario:
You have a process service that orchestrates 5 other entity/utility services. The process gets triggered and starts executing but 3rd call fails. More often than not it is too expensive to have a common transactional context between services (in order to have 2-phase commit), so the solution is to use Compensation i.e. to call the opposite operations of all services that already did a write operation before the failure. If you cannot guarantee the order of the messages, you cannot possibly know what you should rollback and what not (if you don't explicitly look in the underlying systems and track the change yourself - but this is not a sane approach).
Hope this helps!
Here's what I wrote for my answer:
By implementing a Queue data structure, Consumers will receive messages in order by which they were sent. For example, An Order System in Enterprise systems sends some messages to Sales System. Let these be "GetPayment" and "Make a Shipment". If these messages are not queued, the Sales System could malfunction by notifying to "Make a Shipment" before "Getting a Payment".
The idea is to maintain the enterprise level workflow.
PS: Plamen has more in-depth answer.
Whatsoever gets into the message buffer first should be served first. Message queues are used to retain the order of the messages received. Queues are First in and first out.
I am looking looking for a message queue with these requirements. Couldn't find it; maybe the closest was the rabbitmq-lvc plugin (but I need the first value in the line to stick and stay in front).
Would anyone know a technology to support these?
message queue is FIFO
if a duplicate message is being enqueued, the message queue itself either rejects or drops it.
For example, producers put these three messages (each with a discriminator value) into the queue in this sequence: M1(discriminator=7654), M2(discriminator=2435), M3(discriminator=7654).
Now I want the message queue to see that M3 has the same discriminator value as M1 and thus drop/reject M3. Consumers receive only: M1, M2.
Thanks
Tom
I don't know the other transports but I know that WebSphere MQ doesn't do this and I believe that the explanation why would apply broadly across the category. I'd be very surprised to find that any messaging transport actually provides this. Here are a few reasons why:
Async messages are supposed to be atomic. Different vendors make their own accommodations for message affinity (a relationship between two or more messages) but as a rule, message affinity is to be avoided. Your use case not only requires the transport to deal with message affinity, but to do so over an indeterminate interval between related messages.
Message payload is a blob. For performance reasons, WMQ doesn't touch message payloads except for things like compression or code page conversion. Anything that requires parsing the message payload is a job for WebSphere Message Broker, DataPower or WebSphere ESB. I would expect any messaging transport which claims to be performant would face similar issues because parsing payloads results in longer code paths and non-linear performance degradation. The exception is message properties but WMQ uses these for selection only and I expect that is generally the case.
Stateless operation. As a transport, the state of the application may be stored in a persistent message but the state of the transport layer should not depend on the state of the application across different units of work. Again, an ESB type of product is best suited when you want to delegate management of some of the application state to the messaging layer and especially when such management spans many units of work.
Assured delivery. WMQ was designed to never lose your persistent message. If the app explicitly sets expiry the message might go away because the sender said it was OK to do so. If the message is non-persistent it might go away, but only in an exceptional condition and, again, because the sender said it was OK to do so. The use case you describe might result in a message going away not because the sender said it was OK, or even because the recipient said it was OK but because of an interaction with some unrelated 3rd party who happened to beat you to the queue with a duplicate value. What if that first message has an invalid header or code page problem and gets rolled back? What if I as an attacker spew out garbage messages with all possible 4-digit values for discriminator?
As I said, I don't know the other messaging products so there may be something out there which meets your requirement and if so I'll be interested to read about it. However in the event hat nobody replies, this post may shed some light on the reasons why.