I am wondering about the reliabilty of message delivery in messaging systems such as WebsphereMQ or ActiveMQ (used via JMS). As far as I know messages can be buffered if the recepient is unavailable and will be delivered later.
Now I am wondering what happens if the sender temporarily cannot reach the network. Is there some kind of local buffering which will send the messages later? I assume this depends on where the message broker is running. Are there local brokers on all machines or just a central one?
To pinpoint my question: Is a messaging system the right choice if I need to ensure, that messages are received eventually, even in the face of temporary network failure? Is there a certain setup required to achieve this reliabilty?
Any pointers to relevant documentation would be appreciated.
The common solution is called "store and forward". In such systems, once you've handed off the message to the local message agent it becomes their responsibility. This agent might not be a full broker. If the messaging system has basic delivery guarantees, the local agent will still need persistent buffering of messages until they're handed off to a real broker.
If you really can't afford to lose messages I'd recommend implementing a reliable messaging pattern at the endpoints if you can, i.e. the sender re-sends if no acknowledgement is received within a certain time period and the receiver has duplicate detection to cope with receiving the same message more than once.
Guaranteed delivery comes with a performance overhead and usually doesn't give any guarantee as to how long your message might take to get there.
Related
Is it possible to keep a history of messages (with message content would be perfect) that have already been retrieved and are no longer on a queue?
In the application I can see when the sender attempts to put the message in the queue and when the receiver attempts to pick the messages up, but I'd like to see when the message really arrived into the queue and when the messages were really received.
Does MQ Explorer have this function? How would I use it?
What you are looking for is a message tracking/auditing software for IBM MQ. You can find a list of what is available here.
It is possible to use an API exit to make copies of messages in a queue or to audit both PUT and GET operations.
It is also possible to put messages to a topic, then create as many administrative subscriptions to destination queues as required. Something can then GET and log messages from one of those destination queues. The problem with this is that MQ changes the message ID between publication and consumption whereas in a queue it remains static.
There is no native MQ function to capture messages. It's possible to use linear logs and later scrape the logs but these do not necessarily capture all messages due to optimization. (A message PUT to a waiting getter outside of syncpoint for example.) However there is at least one commercial product to scrape linear transaction logs to audit message activity.
The philosophy of MQ in general is that it is the delivery mechanism and deals with envelope data to route and deliver but does not deal with payload data. WAS, IIB and other broker/transformation engines are where IBM has put all of the functions that deal with message payloads.
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.
We need to deliver real-time messages to our clients, but their servers are behind a proxy, and we cannot initialize a connection; webhook variant won't work.
What is the best way to deliver real-time messages considering that:
client that is behind a proxy
client can be off for a long period of time, and all messages must be delivered
the protocol/way must be common enough, so that even a PHP developer could easily use it
I have in mind three variants:
WebSocket - client opens a websocket connection, and we send messages that were stored in DB, and messages comming in real time at the same time.
RabbitMQ - all messages are stored in a durable, persistent queue. What if partner will not read from a queue for some time?
HTTP GET - partner will pull messages by blocks. In this approach it is hard to pick optimal pull interval.
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!
Since you seem to have to store messages when your peer is not connected, the question applies to any other solution equally: what if the peer is not connected and messages are queueing up?
RabbitMQ is great if you want loose coupling: separating the producer and the consumer sides. The broker will store messages for you if no consumer is connected. This can indeed fill up memory and/or disk space on the broker after some time - in this case RabbitMQ will shut down.
In general, RabbitMQ is a great tool for messaging-based architectures like the one you describe:
Load balancing: you can use multiple publishers and/or consumers, thus sharing load.
Flexibility: you can configure multiple exchanges/queues/bindings if your business logic needs it. You can easily change routing on the broker without reconfiguring multiple publisher/consumer applications.
Flow control: RabbitMQ also gives you some built-in methods for flow control - if a consumer is too slow to keep up with publishers, RabbitMQ will slow down publishers.
You can refactor the architecture later easily. You can set up multiple brokers and link them via shovel/federation. This is very useful if you need your app to work via multiple data centers.
You can easily spot if one side is slower than the other, since queues will start growing if your consumers can't read fast enough from a queue.
High availability and fault tolerance. RabbitMQ is very good at these (thanks to Erlang).
So I'd recommend it over the other two (which might be good for a small-scale app, but you might grow it out quickly is requirements change and you need to scale up things).
Edit: something I missed - if it's not vital to deliver all messages, you can configure queues with a TTL (message will be discarded after a timeout) or with a limit (this limits the number of messages in the queue, if reached new messages will be discarded).
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.
I am planning to inegrate messaging middleware in my web application. Right now I am tesing different messaging middleware software like RabbitMQ,JMS, HornetQ, etc..
Examples provided with this softwares are working but its not giving as desired results.
So, I want to know that which are the factors which are responsible to improve peformance that one should keep in eyes?
Which are the areas, a developer should take care of to improve the performance of middleware messaging software?
I'm the project lead for HornetQ but I will try to give you a generic answer that could be applied to any message system you choose.
A common question that I see is people asking why a single producer / single consumer won't give you the expected performance.
When you send a message, and are asking confirmation right away, you need to wait:
The message transfer from client to server
The message being persisted on the disk
The server acknowledging receipt of the message by sending a callback to the client
Similarly when you are receiving a message, you ACK to the server:
The ACK is sent from client to server
The ACK is persisted
The server sends back a callback saying that the callback was achieved
And if you need confirmation for all your message-sends and mesage-acks you need to wait these steps as you have a hardware involved on persisting the disk and sending bits on the network.
Message Systems will try to scale up with many producers and many consumers. That is if many are producing they should all use the resources available at the server shared for all the consumers.
There are ways to speed up a single producer or single consumer:
One is by using transactions. So, you minimize the blocks and syncs you perform on disk while persisting at the server and roundtrips on the network. (This is actually the same on any database)
Another one, is by using Callbacks instead of blocking at the consumer. (JMS 2 is proposing a Callback similar to the ConfirmationHandler on HornetQ).
Also: most providers I know will have a performance section on their docs with requirements and suggestions for that specific product. You should look individually at each product