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.
Related
I'm designing a quite complicated system and was wondering what the best way is to put a jms consumer (activemq, vm protocol, non persitent) inside a netty handler.
Let me explain, i have several clients connecting to my netty server using websockets. For every client connection i create a jms consumer that listens for interesting messages on one or more topics. If a interesting message arrives i need to do a extra step (additional filtering) before sending the message to the client using the websocket.
Is the following a good way to do this:
inside a SimpleChannelInboundHandler i declare a private non static consumer
the consumer is initialized in channelActive
the consumer is destroyed in channelInactive
when a message is received by consumer i do the extra filter a send it using ctx.channel().write()
In this setup i'm a bit worried that the consumer might turn into slow consumer and slow everything down, cause the websocket goes over the internet.
I came up with a more complex one to decouple the "receiving of message by consumer" and "sending of message through a websocket".
inside a SimpleChannelInboundHandler i declare a private non static consumer
the consumer is initialized in channelActive
the consumer is destroyed in channelInactive
when a message is received by consumer i put it in a blockedqueue
every minute i let a thread (created for every client) look in the queue and send the found messages to the client using ctx.channel().write().
At this point i'm a bit worried about the extra thread per client.
Or is there maybe a better way to accomplish this task?
This is a classic slow consumer problem and the first step to resolving it is to determine what the appropriate action is when a slow consumer is detected. If it is acceptable that the slow consumer misses messages then the solution is some variation on dropping messages or unsubscribing them from the feed. For example, if it's acceptable that the client misses messages then, when one is received from JMS, check if the channel is writable. If it isn't, drop the message. If you want to give yourself a bit more of a buffer (although OS buffers are quite large) you can track the number of write completion future's that haven't completed (ie the messages haven't been written to the OS send buffer) and drop messages if there are too many outstanding write requests.
If the client may not miss messages, and is consistently slow, then the problem is more difficult. One option might be to divert messages to a JMS queue with a specific header value, then open a new consumer that reads messages from that queue using a JMS selector. This will put more load on the JMS server but might be appropriate for temporary slowness and hopefully it won't interfere with you main topic feeds. Alternatively you might want to stash the messages in a different store, such as a database, so you can poll for messages when they can be sent. If you do this right a single polling thread can cope with many clients (query for clients which have outstanding messages, then for each client, load a bunch of messages). However this isn't as convenient as using JMS.
I wouldn't go with option 2 because the blocking queue is only going to solve the problem temporarily, and you can achieve the same thing by tracking how many write operations are waiting to complete.
I'm using ActiveMQ along with Mule (a kind of ESB based on Spring).
We got a fast producer and a slow consumer.
It's synchronous configuration with only one consumer.
Here the configuration of the consumer in spring style: http://pastebin.com/vweVd1pi
The biggest requirement is to keep the order of the messages.
However, after hours of running this code, suddenly, ActiveMQ skips 200 messages, and send the next ones.The 200 messages are still there in the activeMQ, they are not lost.
But our client (Mule), does have some custom code to check the order of the messages, using an unique identifier.
I had this issue already a few month ago. We change the consumer by using the parameter "jms.prefetchPolicy.queuePrefetch=1". It seemed to have worked well and to be the fix we needed unti now when the issue reappeared on another consumer.
Is it a bug, or a configuration issue ?
I can't talk about the requirement from a Mule perspective, but there are a couple of broker features that you should take a look at. There are two ways to guarantee message ordering in ActiveMQ:
Message groups are a way of ensuring that a set of related messages will be consumed by the same consumer in the order that they are placed on a queue. To use it you need to specify a JMSXGroupID header on related messages, and assign them an incrementing JMSXGroupSeq number. If a consumer dies, remaining messages from that group will be sent to another single consumer, while still preserving order.
Total message ordering applies to all messages on a topic. It is configured on the broker on a per-destination basis and requires no particular changes to client code. It comes with a synchronisation overhead.
Both features allow you to scale out to more than one consumer.
I’m writing a server/client game, a typical scenario looks like this: one client (clientA) send a message to the server, there is a MessageDrivenBean in server to handle such messages. After the MDB finished its job, it sends the result message back to another client (clientB).
In my opinion I only need two queues for such communication, one for input the other for output. Creating new queue for each connection is not a good idea, right?
The Input queue is relative clear, if more clients are sending message at the same time, the messages are just waiting in the queue, while there are more MDB instances in server, that should not a big performance issue.
But on the other side I am not quite clear about the output queue, should I use a topic instead of a queue? Every client is listening the output queue, one of them gets the new message and checks the property to determine if the message is to it, if not, it rollback the transaction, the message goes back to queue and be ready for other client … It should work but must be very slow. If I use topic instead, every client gets a copy of the message, if it’s not to it, just ignores the message. It should be better, right?
I’m new about message system. Is there any suggestion about my implementation? Thanks!
To begin with, choosing JMS as a gaming platform is, well, unusual — businesses use JMS brokers for delivery reliability and transaction support. Do you really need this heavy lifiting in a game? Shouldn't you resort to your own HTTP-based protocol, for example?
That said, two queues are a standard pattern for point-to-point communication. Creating a queue for a new connection is definitely not OK — message-driven beans are attached to queues at deployment time, so you won't be able to respond to queue creation events. Besides, queues are not meant to be created and destroyed in short cycles, they're rather designed to be long-living entities. If you need to deliver a message to one precise client, have the client listen on the server response queue with a message selector set to filter only the messages intended for this client (see javax.jms.Message API).
With topics it's exactly as you noted — each connected client will get a copy of the message — so again, it's not a good pattern to send to n clients a message that has to be discarded by n-1 clients.
MaDa;
You could stick one output queue (or topic) and simply tag the message with a header that identifies the intended client. Then, clients can listen on the queue/topic using a selector. Hopefully your JMS implementation has efficient server-side listener evaluation.
We are using IBM MQ and we are facing some serious problems regarding controlling its asynchronous delivery to its recipient.We are having some java listeners configured, now the problem is that we need to control the messages coming towards listener, because the messages coming to server are in millions count and server machine dont have that much capacity t process so many threads at a time, so is there any way like throttling on IBM MQ side where we can configure preetch limit like Apache MQ does?
or is there any other way to achieve this?
Currently we are closing connection with IBM MQ when some X limit has reached on listener, but doesen't seems to be efficient way.
Please guys help us out to solve this issue.
Generally with message queueing technologies like MQ the point of the queue is that the sender is decoupled from the receiver. If you're having trouble with message volumes then the answer is to let them queue up on the receiver queue and process them as best you can, not to throttle the sender.
The obvious answer is to limit the maximum number of threads that your listeners are allowed to take up. I'm assuming you're using some sort of MQ threadpool? What platform are you using that provides unlimited listener threads?
From your description, it almost sounds like you have some process running that - as soon as it detects a message in the queue - it reads the message, starts up a new thread and goes back and looks at the queue again. This is the WRONG approach.
You should have a defined number of process threads running (start with one and scale up as required, and within limits of your server) which read from the queue themselves. They would each open the queue in shared mode and either get-with-wait or do immediate get with a sleep if you get a MQRC 2033 (no messages in queue).
Hope that helps.
If you are running in the application server environment, then the maxPoolDepth property on the activationSpec will define the maximum ServerSessionPool size for the MDB - decreasing this will throttle the number messages being delivered concurrently.
Of course, if your MDB (or javax.jms.MessageListener in the JSE environment) does nothing but hand the message to something else (or, worse, just spawn an unmanaged Thread and start it) onMessage will spin rapidly and you can still encounter problems. So in that case you need to limit other resources too, e.g. via threadpool configuration.
Closing the connection to the QM is never an efficient way, as the MQCONN/MQDISC cycle is expensive.
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