Is there a way to drop a message on queue?
I receive my packet header and check some pattern on that, when that pattern fails I want to drop it. Is there a way for that? How to do that?
In rabbitMQ, messages are published on exchanges, and delivered to queues. You can configure a exchange that discards messages that fits some header patterns. Headers exchange. Or you can list a queue and ack a message that fits your pattern, without taking any further action, that is equivalent to drop message.
Related
We are using googles steaming pull subscriber the design is as follows
We are doing
sending file from FE (frontend) to BE (backend)
BE converting that file to ByteArray and publishing to pubsub topic as message (so ByteArray going as message)
Topic sending that message to subscriber, subscriber converting the ByteArray to file again
that converted file subscriber sending to that tool
tool doing some cool stuff with file and notify the status to subscriber
that status going to BE and BE update the DB and sending that status to FE
Now in our subscriber when we receive message we are immediately acknowledge it and removing the listener of subscriber so that we don't get message any more
and when that tool done that stuff, it sending status to subscriber (we have express server running on subscriber) and
after receiving status we are re-creating listener of subscriber to receive message
Note
that tool may take 1hr or more to do stuff
we are using ordering key to properly distribute message to VM's
this code is working fine but my question is
is there any flaw in this (bcz we r removing listener then again re creating it or anything like that)
or any better option or GCP services to best fit this design
or any improvement in code
EDIT :
Removed code sample
I would say that there are several parts of this design that are sub-optimal. First of all, acking a message before you have finished processing it means you risk message loss. What happens if your tool or subscriber crashes after acking the message, but before processing has completed? This means when the processes start back up, they will not receive the message again. Are you okay with requests from the frontend possibly never being processed? If not, you'll want to ack after processing is completed, or--given that your processing takes so long--persist the request to a database or to some storage and then acknowledge the message. If you are going to have to persist the file somewhere else anyway, you might want to consider taking Pub/Sub out of the picture and just writing the file to storage like GCS and then having your subscribers instead read out of GCS directly.
Secondly, stopping the subscriber upon each message being received is an anti-pattern. Your subscriber should be receiving and processing each message as it arrives. If you need to limit the number of messages being processed in parallel, use message flow control.
Also ordering keys isn't really a way to "properly distribute message to VM's." Ordering keys is only a means by which to ensure ordered delivery. There are no guarantees that the messages for the same ordering key will continually go to the same subscriber client. In fact, if you shut down the subscriber client after receiving each message, then another subscriber could receiving the next message for the ordering key since you've acked the earlier message. If all you mean by "properly distribute message" is that you want the messages delivered in order, then this is the correct way to use ordering keys.
You say you have a subscription per client, then whether or not that is the right thing to do depends on what you mean by "client." If client means "user of the front end," then I imagine you plan to have a different topic per user as well. If so, then you need to keep in mind the 10,000 topic-per-project limit. If you mean that each VM has its own subscription, then note that each VM is going to receive every message published to the topic. If you only want one VM to receive each message, then you need to use the same subscription across all VMs.
In general, also keep in mind that Cloud Pub/Sub has at-least-once delivery semantics. That means that even an acknowledged message could be redelivered, so you do need to be prepared to handle duplicate message delivery.
I'm wondering if its possible to write a Powershell script to move a message from one MSMQ queue to another?
I have a few failed messages (i.e. messages that did not complete because they involved, say, a call to a server that was down, for example) in an error queue that I would like to retry by moving them back into their original processing queue. I am using NServiceBus v6 handlers to listen for messages that enter the original processing queue that will resend the message if they are put back into that queue.
Has anyone done this before using Powershell?
In particular, I would like to do the following in Powershell:
Find a message based on a specific identifier (string) within the message body
Move this message to a specific queue
I know Powershell has commands such as Move-MsmqMessage. I have been unable to find an example online that I can re-use for this function.
Any help much appreciated.
If you have messages in the error queue from NServiceBus, you can use this tool to return them to the original queue they were in.
https://github.com/ParticularLabs/MsmqReturnToSourceQueue
It checks the headers what the original queue was and sends them there again. The idea is that any endpoint can send messages to the same error queue. They can then either be digested by ServiceControl or any other tool. If you leave them in the error queue, this ReturnToSourceQueue can send them back to the original queue.
For example, if I want to remove redundant messages from the queue - so that when actor recieves Connect message, it should inspect it's mailbox and remove other Connect messages, in order to do only one connect instead of several.
Is something like this possible?
Yes, you can configure the actors dispatcher to have any mailbox of your choice, so if you implement such a mailbox, you can use that, see the following section of the documentation: http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/2.1.1/scala/dispatchers.html#Mailboxes
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 am writing an acceptor application and using a persistent FIX session. I am trying to write a recovery mode, such that if I go offline or my program restarts, when I reconnect I want to reprocess all the messages sent to me during the day to get back to the current state.
To do this, when I start up I send a resend request for all messages to the server. They fire me back all the relevant messages, and they are marked possdupflag=Y and possresend=Y. Before each message, they send a sequence reset for the repeated message they are about to send.
The problem is though, these messages do not seem to be processed by my message cracker. Both fromAdmin and fromApp do not get these messages. I assume they are being ignored because of the dup flag and/or resend. So is there a way for me to tell QuickFIX that I want to see these messages?
On that note- if anyone has any recommendations on better recovery processes I would be open to them.
Thanks.
There's at least a couple of potential problems with this recovery strategy. The first is that it's not very friendly to your trading counterparty. If you only receive a small number of messages during your session then it may not be an issue, but if you receive hundreds of thousands of messages then your counterparty might complain about the massive resends.
The other issue is that message resend is intended for error recovery and is managed by the session protocol layer. In QuickFIX/J (and other FIX engines) the session maintains recovery state in addition to sending the ResendRequest automatically when it detects a sequence number gap. Your approach might work if you reset the next expected incoming sequence number to 1. When the session receives the next message with a higher sequence number it will detect the gap and request the missing messages. If the messages are validated, they will be forwarded to application layer with the PossDup flag set. If you send the ResendRequest message yourself the behavior is undefined since the session state will not have been set up properly.
I recommend using a MessageLog implementation to store your incoming messages in a form you can use for recovery when your application starts. You can look at the implementation of the existing message logs (FileLog, JdbcLog) to get some ideas.
The behaviour occurs because the engine's persistance system tells it that the recieved messages are resent messages and so (per the FIX protocol specification) are discarded. Here we save FIXml strings into our database to provide a similar recovery ability to that which you describe(they are also written to xml files on disk for other reasons). I don't believe that there is any way to tell quickfix that you want to see duplicate messages but it is probably better to use a different form or persistance to save on connection overheads. Quickfix does provide a way of outputting messages to file as they come in if that helps.
I too have the same issue and What Frank Says is absolutely correct ,
Just use the below method to set the target sequence number to the begin seq number of the desired resend req .
getSession()->setNextTargetMsgSeqNum(atoi(seq.c_str()));
The engine internally identifies that the target number is way too large and automatically sends resend request , and all messages will be captured in onMessage call back itself as usual