While performing a message recovery operation in chunks of 2500 messages per resend request,
drop copy gap fills the administrative messages.
Assuming sending "resend request’s” from 10260 till 36264.
1st resend request 10260 till 12759
2nd resend request 12760 till 15259
3rd resend request 15260 till 17759
4th resend request 17760 till 20259
And so on……
While responding the 3rd resend request,
the counter party sends the SequenceReset as there was a gap fill for administrative messages.
However the NewSequence number in that SequenceReset is 36265 (that is actually greater than 3rd resend request end sequence no 17759).
And then QUICK FIX ignores the next expected resend request itself i.e., 4th resend request 17760 till 20259
How should we handle this scenario as such to send the 4th resend request when there is a gapfill towards the end of the resend request response?
Please advice.
Related
I have a quickfixj initiator connecting to vendor's acceptor and receiving messages. I keep the fix messages in a buffer which is processed by a thread. To avoid loosing the message in case crash with message in the buffer, I have the last seqnum processed, and plan to send resend message for that next seqnum on my side when I reconnect.
I know the better solution would be that I save the messages before I receives them, but the design is to avoid doing any db access in the onMessage call.
I didn't find any example how this could be done, resending request for a specific seqnum. Should I simply overload the logon message and send the seqnum?
Anyone has an example?
I guess you are already in synch as per the last thread if quickfixj crash in onmessage, will I lose my current message?.
QuickFixJ manages 2 sequence numbers:
SenderSequenceNum: Sequence number used in sending messages.
TargetSequenceNum: Sequence number expected to receive.
So you have two options:
Option 1: Process the receive messages on the QuickfixJ onMessage() callback thread. So that in case of an exception the sequence number does not increment. And QuickFixJ automatically sends the resend request on receiving next fix message as it will detect the sequence gap.
Option 2: Persist the sequence number that you have successfully processed. In case of crash, on restart you can set the expected receive sequence number using:
Session.lookupSession(session_).setNextTargetMsgSeqNum();
So if you receive a sequence number higher than that, QuickfixJ automatically sends resend the request.
Note: Do not change the sender sequence number then another party will receive a sequence number lower than expected and can cause disconnection.
At the moment I have a single AWS EC2 instance which handles all incoming http client requests. It analyses each request and then decides which back end worker server should handle the request and then makes a http call to the chosen server. The back end server then responds when it has processed the request. The front end server will then respond to the client. The front end server is effectively a load balancer.
I now want to go to a Pub-Sub architecture instead of the front end server pushing the requests to the back end instances. The front end server will do some basic processing and then simply put the request into an SNS queue and the logic of which back end server should handle the request is left to the back end servers themselves.
My question is with this model what is the best way to have the back end servers notify the front end server that they have processed the request? Previously they just replied to the http request the front end server sent but now there is no direct request, just an item of work being published to a queue and a back end instance picking it off the queue.
Pubsub architectures are not well suited to responses/acknowledgements. Their fire-and-forget broadcasting pattern decouples publishers and the subscribers: a publisher does not know if or how many subscribers there are, and the subscribers do no know which publisher generated a message. Also, it can be difficult to guarantee sequence of responses, they won't necessarily match the sequence of messages due to the nature of network comms and handling of messages can take different amounts of time etc. So each message that needs to be acknowledge needs a unique ID that the subscriber can include in its response so the publisher can match a response with the message sent. For example:
publisher sends message "new event" and provides a UUID for the
event
many subscribers get the message; some may be the handlers for
the request, but others might be observers, loggers, analytics, etc
if only one subscriber handles the message (e.g. the first
subscriber to get a key from somewhere), that subscriber generates a
message "new event handled" and provides a UUID
the original
publisher, as well as any number of other subscribers, may get that
message;
the original publisher sees the ID is
in its cache as an unconfirmed message, and now marks it as
confirmed
if a certain amount of time passes without receiving a
confirmation with given ID, the original publisher republishes the
original message, with a new ID, and removes the old ID from cache.
In step 3, if many subscribers handled the message instead of just one, then it
less obvious how the original publisher should handle "responses": how does it
know how many subscribers handle the message, some could be down or
too busy to respond, or some may be in the process of responding by the time
the original publisher determines that "not enough handlers have
responded".
Publish-subscribe architectures should be designed to not request any response, but instead to check for some condition that should have happened as a result of the command being handled, such as a thumbnail having gotten generated (it can assume as a result of a handler of the message).
I need to send Only one SUCCESS email when ALL the requests mentioned in Type A, B and C pass.
If any of the requests mentioned in ANY of the Type A, B or C fails, there shouldn't be any SUCCESS email, just the failure mail of that request.
You can add Mailer Visualizer with Failure Limit set to 0. Also set number in Success Limit as you need for getting success mail. You can add fake request that will fail and then you will get success mail only if the number of your requests succeeded.
Failure Limit
Once this number of failed responses is exceeded, a failure email is sent - i.e. set the count to 0 to send an e-mail on the first failure.
Success Limit
Once this number of successful responses is exceeded after previously reaching the failure limit, a success email is sent. The mailer will thus only send out messages in a sequence of failed-succeeded-failed-succeeded, etc.
Move your SUCCESS email SMTP Sampler into tearDown Thread Group
Put it under If Controller with the condition of ${__P(failure,)}
Add JSR223 Listener to your main Thread Group
Put the following code into "Script" area:
if (!prev.isSuccessful()) {props.put('failure', 'true')}
If any sampler in the main "Thread Group" fails it will set failure property to true therefore "SUCCESS" mail will be sent out only if there will be no failing requests
I am trying to implement Fix.4.2 protocol, but It is difficult to understand the message log I attached below. Here Logon(35=A) request was sent with MsgSeqNum(34=1) from client. Then for testing ResendRequest and SequenceReset session level messages I sent a NewOrderSingle request with MsgSeqNum=7 (instead of MsgSeqNum=2, as subsequent messages should have incremeted msgseqnum after logon request). As expected MsgSeqNum is too high than recieved one Fiximulator responded with a ResendRequest(35=2) to send from 2 to 0 (i.e., from 2 to 7). Here why the Fiximulator is not waiting for client's reply ? instead it is sending an heartbeat message. Why the client is sending ResendRequest in response to ResendRequest of Fiximulator instead of sending SequenceReset message ?.
Also explain remaining cases if possible.
Thanks in advance.
What is your status of ResetOnLogon in your config file for the acceptor ? Default value is N so it isn't being reset. Always check your config file or try debugging to figure out issues.
ResetOnLogon Determines if sequence numbers should be reset when recieving a logon request. Acceptors only
I'm reading the XEP-0124 / BOSH specification and do not understand the following sentence in chapter 9.1 Request Acknowledgements:
The only exception is that, after its
session creation response, the
connection manager SHOULD NOT include
an 'ack' attribute in any response if
the value would be the 'rid' of the
request being responded to.
In my words: I should not send an ACK if the respond is dedicated for the last and only request (in connection manager's queue).
But: There is a client with it's own state machine. Maybe the client already send a second request -- where the first one is not replied -- and expect to get two answers. In this case the client except a ACK with RID of the "older" request and the connection manager have to set ACK.
Conclusion: The connection mananager MUST set ACK as long multiple requests are allowed.
I'm not sure, but is this text paragraph dedicated only for the use case where no further request is send by the client but the session creation phase is finished successfully and the connection manager have to send "ping" messages to the client due to "wait" timeouts ?
So, as I read it:
If the highest RID (in sequence) that you have received is 11 (you might have received 14 after that, but it is out of sequence since 12 & 13 are missing), and you are responding on:
The same request, then you should not (it is recommended that you do not, but if you have a good reason to, then you may) send an 'ack' attribute.
An earlier held request (say RID 10) then you should set 'ack' to 11 since that is the highest in-sequence RID that you have received so far.
It's okay if the client sent multiple requests and the server doesn't yet know about them. This is because there is a chance that when the client sent 11, the server has no held connections and it will respond back on the same connection. In that case, there are 2 requests sent out (11 & 12), but the response for each one acks that same request since the server always has something to send back immediately.