Direct vs Indirect communication
and
Synchronous vs Asynchronous Communication?
In direct communication, it gives the name of the process you are communicating with such as send(destination-process, message) and receive (source-process, message). A link has exactly one pair of communicating processes. Between each pair there exists exactly one link, which may be unidirectional, but is usually bidirectional.
Indirect communication has a unique ID, processes can communicate only if they share a mailbox, also known as ports. During communication a link is established only if processes share a common mailbox. The link may be associated with many processes, and each pair of processes may share several communication links that can be either bi or unidirectional
Synchronous is considered blocking. A blocking receive has the receiver block until a message is available and a blocking send has the sender block until the message is received. For a blocking send/receive, that is called a rendezvous.
Asynchronous is also called non-blocking. For an asynchronous/non-blocking send has the sender send a message and continue. For a non-blocking receive, it has the receiver receive a valid message or it becomes null.
Related
I am new to ZMQ and am not sure if what I want is even possible or if I should use another technology.
I would like to have a socket that multiple servers can stream to.
It appears that a ZMQ socket can do this based on this documentation: http://api.zeromq.org/4-0:zmq-setsockopt
How would I implement a ZMQ socket on the receiving end that only grabs the latest message sent from each server?
You can do this with Zmq's PUB / SUB.
The first key thing is that a SUB socket can be connected to multiple PUBlishers. This is covered in Chapter 1 of the guide:
Some points about the publish-subscribe (pub-sub) pattern:
A subscriber can connect to more than one publisher, using one connect call each time. Data will then arrive and be interleaved “fair-queued” so that no single publisher drowns out the others.
If a publisher has no connected subscribers, then it will simply drop all messages.
If you’re using TCP and a subscriber is slow, messages will queue up on the publisher. We’ll look at how to protect publishers against this using the “high-water mark” later.
So, that means that you can have a single SUB socket on your client. This can be connected to several PUB sockets, one for each server from which the client needs to stream messages.
Latest Message
The "latest message" can be partially dealt with (as I suspect you'd started to find) using high water marks. The ZMQ_RCVHWM option allows the number to be received to be set to 1, though this is an imprecise control.
You also have to consider what it is that is meant by "latest" message; the PUB servers and SUB client will have different views of what this is. For example, when the zmq_send() function on a PUB server returns, the sent message is the one that the PUBlisher would regard as the "latest".
However, over in the client there is no knowledge of this as nothing has yet got down through the PUBlishing server's operating system network stack, nothing has yet touched the Ethernet, etc. So the SUBscribing client's view of the "latest" message at that point in time is whichever message is in ZMQ's internal buffers / queues waiting for the application to read it. This message could be quite old in comparison to the one the PUBlisher has just started sending.
In reality, the "latest" message seen by the client SUBscriber will be dependent on how fast the SUBscriber application runs.
Provided it's fast enough to keep up with all the PUBlishers, then every single message the SUBscriber gets will be as close to the "latest" message as it can get (the message will be only as old as the network propagation delays and the time taken to transit through ZMQ's internal protocols, buffers and queues).
If the SUBscriber isn't fast enough to keep up, then the "latest" messages it will see will be at least as old as the processing time per message multiplied by the number of PUBlishers. If you've set the receive HWM to 1, and the subscriber is not keeping up, the publishers will try publishing messages but the subscriber socket will keep rejecting them until the subscribed application has cleared out the old message that's caused the queue congestion, waiting for zmq_recv() to be called.
If the subscriber can't keep up, the best thing to do in the subscriber is:
have a receiving thread dedicated to receiving messages and dispose of them until processing becomes available
have a separate processing thread that does the processing.
Have the two threads communicate via ZMQ, using a REQ/REP pattern via an inproc connection.
The receiving thread can zmq_poll both the SUB socket connection to the PUBlishing servers and the REP socket connection to the processing thread.
If the receiving thread receives a message on the REP socket, it can reply with the next message read from the SUB socket.
If it receives a message from the SUB socket with no REPly due, it disposes of the message.
The processing thread sends 1 bytes messages (the content doesn't matter) to its REQ socket to request the latest message, and receives the latest message from the PUBlishers in reply.
Or, something like that. That'll keep the messages flowing from PUBlishers to the SUBscriber, thus the SUBscriber always has a message as close to possible as being "the latest" and is processing that as and when it can, disposing of messages it can't deal with.
I'm having issues understanding what socket types are negatively impacted in the event that TCP must try retransmmitting messages.
We have a distributed system that uses a combination of inprocess and TCP connections for internal processes and external devices and applications. My concern is that in the event there is a significant traffic that causes latency and dropped packets, that a TCP retransmit will cause delay in the system.
What I'd like to avoid is an application that has messages compile in a queue waiting to be sent (via a single ZeroMQ TCP socket) because TCP is forcing the socket to repeatedly retransmit messages that never sent an acknowledge.
Is this an issue that can happen using ZeroMQ? Currently I am using PUSH/PULL on a Linux OS.
Or is this not a concern, and if not, why?
It is crucial that messages from the external devices/applications do not feed stale data.
First, the only transport where retransmits are possible is TCP over an actual physical network. And then likely not on a LAN, as it's unlikely that Ethernet packets will go missing on a LAN.
TCP internal to a computer, and especially IPC, INPROC, etc will all have guaranteed delivery of data first time, every time. There is no retransmit mechanism.
If one of the transports being used by socket does experience delays due to transmission errors, that will slow things up. ZMQ cannot consider a message "sent" until it's been propagated via all the transports used by the socket. The external visibility of "sent" is that the outbound message queue has moved away from the high water mark by 1.
It's possible that any one single message will arrive sooner over IPC than TCP, and possible that message 2 will arrive over IPC before message 1 has arrived via TCP. But if you're relying on message timing / relative order, you shouldn't be using ZMQ in the first place; it's Actor model, not CSP.
EDIT For Frank
The difference between Actor and CSP is that the former is asynchronous, the latter is synchronous. Thus for Actor model, the sender has zero information as to when the receiver actually gets a message. For CSP, the sending / receiving is an execution rendevous - the send completes only when the receive is complete.
This can be remarkably useful. If in your system it makes no sense for A to instruct C to do something before (in time, not just in A's code flow) instructing B, then you can do that with CSP (but not Actor model). That's because when A sends to B, B receives the message before A's send completes, freeing A to then send to C.
Unsurprisingly it's real time systems that benefit from CSP.
So consider ZMQ's Actor model with a mix of TCP, IPC and INPROC transports in ZMQ. There's a good chance that messages send via TCP will arrive a good deal later than messages sent through INPROC, even if they were sent first.
Is it possible to perform many SIP transactions in parallel, for a UA with two other UAs? Fpor example, if UA1 is in the middle of an INVITE, can UA1 respond to an incoming INVITE from UA3? What about standalone transactions?
There's nothing in the standard that prevents a SIP device from handling multiple concurrent transactions and in fact SIP servers need to do so in order to be able to handle any kind of load.
As to how a SIP user agent should handle concurrent SIP transactions that's a separate consideration. IF UA1 is already on a call and a new INVITE request comes in from UA3 the typical way to handle it is with some kind of call waiting indication. With a softphone that indication can be visual whereas with an ATA that indication is often on the audio channel by injecting some tones into the UA's audio stream.
For non-INVITE transactions it will generally be a lot simpler since most don't require any user action. For example the UA could maintain half a dozen different registrations with different SIP servers and the various register and/or subscribe transactions (in this case the transaction is simply the combination of the request and response) could be running concurrently.
There's another SIP parallel transactions "gothca-to-watch-for" too...
Within a sip dialog, if there are multiple UAC transactions started within a short space-of-time (~0.5s) and your transport in unreliable (UDP), there is a possible problem if the initial request packet is lost.
Lost packet with sequence number (CSeq) 'n' doesn't arrive, but the next packet does, containing CSeq n+1.
This is acceptable at the receiving (UAS) side, and it updates its knowledge of the "remote cseq" to 'n+1'.
The initial request is then resent, but CSeq 'n' is now lower then the remote-cseq, so MUST be discarded and the UAS responds with a (500 Server internal error).
Probably not what was expected!
So if your transport is "unreliable", you need to consider serialising requests with a dialog.
Is there some standard configuration setting, service, or tool that accepts messages from one queue and moves them on to another one? Automatically handling the dead message problem, and providing some of retry capability? I was thinking this is what "MSMQ Message Routing" does but can't seem to find documentation on it (except for on Windows Mobile 6, and I don't know if that's relevant).
Context:
I understand that when using MSMQ you should always write to a local queue so that failure is unlikely, and then X should move that message to a remote queue. Is my understanding wrong? Is this where messaging infrastructure like Biztalk comes in? Is it unnecessary to write to a local queue first to absolutely ensure success? Am I supposed to build X myself?
As Hugh points out, you need only one MSMQ Queue to Send messages in one direction from a source to a destination. Source and destination can be on the same server, same network or across the internet, however, both source and destination must have the MSMQ service running.
If you need to do 'message' routing (e.g. a switch which processes messages from several source or destination queues, or routing a message to one or more subscribers based on the type of message etc) you would need more than just MSMQ queue.
Although you certainly can use BizTalk to do message routing, this would be expensive / overkill if you didn't need to use other features of BizTalk. Would recommend you look at open source, or building something custom yourself.
But by "Routing" you might be referring to the queue redirection capability when using HTTP as the transport e.g. over the internet (e.g. here and here).
Re : Failed delivery and retry
I think you have most of the concepts - generally the message DELIVERY retry functionality should be implicit in MSMQ. If MSMQ cannot deliver the message before the defined expiry, then it will be returned on the Dead Letter Queue, and the source can then process messages from the DLQ and then 'compensate' for them (e.g. reverse the actions of the 'send', indicate failure to the user, etc).
However 'processing' type Retries in the destination will need to be performed by the destination application / listener (e.g. if the destination system is down, deadlocks, etc)
Common ways to do this include:
Using 2 Phase commit - under a distributed unit of work, pull the message off MSMQ and process it (e.g. insert data into a database, change the status of some records etc), and if any failure is encountered, then leave the message back onto the queue and the DB changes will be rolled back.
Application level retries - i.e. on the destination system, in the event of 'retryable' type errors (timeout due to load, deadlocks etc) then to sleep for a few seconds and then retry the same transaction.
However, in most cases, indefinite processing retries are not desirable and you would ultimately need to admit defeat and implement a mechanism to log the message and the error and remove it from the queue.
But I wouldn't 'retry' business failures (e.g. Business Rules, Validation etc) and the behaviour should be defined in your requirements of how to handle these (e.g. account is overdrawn, message is not in a correct format or not valid, etc), e.g. by returning a "NACK" type message back to the source.
HTH
MSMQ sends messages from one queue to another queue.
Let's say you have a queue on a remote machine. You want to send a message to that queue.
So you create a sender. A sender is an application that can use the MSMQ transport to send a message. This can be a .Net queue client (System.Messaging), a WCF service consumer (either over netMsmqBinding or msmqIntegrationBinding, BizTalk using the MSMQ adapter, etc etc.
When you send the message, what actually happens is:
The MSMQ queue manager on the sender machine writes the message to a temporary local queue.
The MSMQ queue manager on the sender machine connects to the MSMQ manager on the receiving machine and transmits the message.
The MSMQ queue manager on the receivers machine puts the message onto the destination queue.
In certain situations MSMQ will encounter messages which for some reason or another cannot be received on the destination queue. In these situations, if you have indicated that a message will use the dead-letter queue then MSMQ will make sure that the message is forwarded to the dead-letter queue.
I need to work with MSMQ (Microsoft Message Queuing). What is it, what is it for, how does it work? How is it different from web services?
With all due respect to #Juan's answer, both are ways of exchanging data between two disconnected processes, i.e. interprocess communication channels (IPC). Message queues are asynchronous, while webservices are synchronous. They use different protocols and back-end services to do this so they are completely different in implementation, but similar in purpose.
You would want to use message queues when there is a possibility that the other communicating process may not be available, yet you still want to have the message sent at the time of the client's choosing. Delivery will occur the when process on the other end wakes up and receives notification of the message's arrival.
As its name states, it's just a queue manager.
You can Send objects (serialized) to the queue where they will stay until you Receive them.
It's normally used to send messages or objects between applications in a decoupled way
It has nothing to do with webservices, they are two different things
Info on MSMQ:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms711472(v=vs.85).aspx
Info on WebServices:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms972326.aspx
Transactional Queue Management 101
A transactional queue is a middleware system that asynchronously routes messages of one sort of another between hosts that may or may not be connected at any given time. This means that it must also be capable of persisting the message somewhere. Examples of such systems are MSMQ and IBM MQ
A Transactional Queue can also participate in a distributed transaction, and a rollback can trigger the disposal of messages. This means that a message is guaranteed to be delivered with at-most-once semantics or guaranteed delivery if not rolled back. The message won't be delivered if:
Host A posts the message but Host B
is not connected
Something (possibly but not
necessarily initiated from Host A)
rolls back the transaction
B connects after the transaction is
rolled back
In this case B will never be aware the message even existed unless informed through some other medium. If the transaction was rolled back, this probably doesn't matter. If B connects and collects the message before the transaction is rolled back, the rollback will also reverse the effects of the message on B.
Note that A can post the message to the queue with the guarantee of at-most-once delivery. If the transaction is committed Host A can assume that the message has been delivered by the reliable transport medium. If the transaction is rolled back, Host A can assume that any effects of the message have been reversed.
Web Services
A web service is remote procedure call or other service (e.g. RESTFul API's) published by a (typically) HTTP Server. It is a synchronous request/response protocol and has no guarantee of delivery built into the protocol. It is up to the client to validate that the service has been correctly run. Typically this will be through a reply to the request or timeout of the call.
In the latter case, web services do not guarantee at-most-once semantics. The server can complete the service and fail to deliver a response (possibly through something outside the server going wrong). The application must be able to deal with this situation.
IIRC, RESTFul services should be idempotent (the same state is achieved after any number of invocations of the same service), which is a strategy for dealing with this lack of guaranteed notification of success/failure in web service architectures. The idea is that conceptually one writes state rather than invoking a service, so one can write any number of times. This means that a lack of feedback about success can be tolerated by the application as it can re-try the posting until it gets a 'success' message from the server.
Note that you can use Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) as an abstraction layer above MSMQ. This gives you the feel of working with a service - with only one-way operations.
For more information, see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms789048.aspx
Actually there is no relation between MSMQ and WebService.
Using MSMQ for interprocess communication (you can use also sockets, windows messaging, mapped memory).
it is a windows service that responsible for keeping messages till someone dequeue them.
you can say it is more reliable than sockets as messages are stored on a harddisk but it is slower than other IPC techniques.
You can use MSMQ in dotnet with small lines of code, Just Declare your MessageQueue object and call Receive and Send methods.
The Message itself can be normal string or binary data.
As everyone has explained MSMQ is used as a queue for messages. Messages can be wrapper for actual data, object and anything that you can serialize and send across the wire. MSMQ has it's own limitations. MSMQ 1.0 and MSMQ 2.0 had a 4MB message limit. This restriction was lifted off with MSMQ 3.0. Message oriented Middleware (MOM) is a concept that heavily depends on Messaging. Enterprise Service Bus foundation is built on Messaging. All these new technologies, depend on Messaging for asynchronous data delivery with reliability.
MSMQ stands for Microsoft Messaging Queue.
It is simply a queue that stores messages formatted so that it can pass to DB (may on same machine or on Server). There are different types of queues over there which categorizes the messages among themselves.
If there is some problem/error inside message or invalid message is passed, it automatically goes to Dead queue which denotes that it is not to be processed further. But before passing a message to dead queue it will retry until a max count and till it is not processed. Then it will be sent to the Dead queue.
It is generally used for sending log message from client machine to server or DB so that if there is any issue happens on client machine then developer or support team can go through log to solve problem.
MSMQ is also a service provided by Microsoft to Get records of Log files.
You get Better Idea from this blog http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms711472(v=vs.85).aspx.