We have a SpringBoot service implementation in which we are using delayed messaging with the below setup:
Initial queue (Queue 1) that gets the message has a TTL set, the queue also has a dead letter exchange mentioned with a specific dead letter routing key.
Another queue (Queue 2) is bound to the DLX of the previous queue with the routing key which is set as the dead letter routing key
A consumer listens to the messages on Queue 2.
The delayed messaging seems to work as expected but I am seeing an issue with messages getting redelivered in certain scenarios.
If I have a debug point in my consumer and keep the message just after reading it for some time then once the current message has been processed consumer gets another message which has the below properties:
Redelivered property as true.
Property deliveryAttempt as 1
Only the first message has an x-death header and redelivered messages do not seem to have it.
The attempt to deliver the message is done 3 times as many times as I pause the consumer using the debug point each time after reading each redelivered message.
My understanding was that the acknowledgment mode by default is AUTO so once the consumer has read the message then it would not be redelivered?
I have tried using maxAttempts=1 property but does not seem to help.
I am using the spring cloud stream to create the consumers and the queues.
I used to run into this issue when the message processing in the consumer failed (exception thrown). In this case, if you have DLQ configured, make sure to add the following configuration as well so the failed message will be routed to the DLQ not the original listening queue.
"
rabbit:
autoBindDlq: true
"
Otherwise if you don't set up the DLQ, configure "autoBindDlq" to "false".
Is it possible to rollback async processed message in ActiveMQ? I'm consuming next message while first one is still processing, so while I'm trying to rollback the first message on another (not activemq pool) thread, I'm getting above error. Eventually should I sednd message to DLQ manually?
Message error handling can work a couple ways:
Broker-side 'redelivery policy'. Where the client invokes a rollback n number (default is usually 6 retries) of times and the broker automatically moves the message to a Dead Letter Queue (DLQ)
Client-side. Application consumes the message and then produces to the DLQ.
Option #1 is good for unplanned/planned outages-- database down, etc. Where you want automatic retry. The re-delivery policy can also be configured when the client connects to the broker.
Option #2 is good for 'bad data' scenarios where you know the message will never be able to be processed. This is ideal, because you can move the message on the 1st consumption and not have to reject the message n number of times.
When you combine infinite retry with #1 and include #2 in your application flow, you can have a robust process flow of automatic retry, and move-bad-data-out-of-the-way-quickly. Best of breed =)
ActiveMQ Redelivery policy
TLDR; In the context of a topic exchange and queues created on the fly by the consumers, how to have a message redelivered / the producer notified when no consumer consumes the message?
I have the following components:
a main service, producing files. Each file has a certain category (e.g. pictures.profile, pictures.gallery)
a set of workers, consuming files and producing a textual output from them (e.g. the size of the file)
I currently have a single RabbitMQ topic exchange.
The producer sends messages to the exchange with routing_key = file_category.
Each consumer creates a queue and binds the exchange to this queue for a set of routing keys (e.g. pictures.* and videos.trending).
When a consumer has processed a file, it pushes the result in a processing_results queue.
Now - this works properly, but it still has a major issue. Currently, if the publisher sends a message with a routing key that no consumer is bound to, the message will be lost. This is because even if the queue created by the consumers is durable, it is destroyed as soon as the consumer disconnects since it is unique to this consumer.
Consumer code (python):
channel.exchange_declare(exchange=exchange_name, type='topic', durable=True)
result = channel.queue_declare(exclusive = True, durable=True)
queue_name = result.method.queue
topics = [ "pictures.*", "videos.trending" ]
for topic in topics:
channel.queue_bind(exchange=exchange_name, queue=queue_name, routing_key=topic)
channel.basic_consume(my_handler, queue=queue_name)
channel.start_consuming()
Loosing a message in this condition is not acceptable in my use case.
Attempted solution
However, "loosing" a message becomes acceptable if the producer is notified that no consumer received the message (in this case it can just resend it later). I figured out the mandatory field could help, since the specification of AMQP states:
This flag tells the server how to react if the message cannot be routed to a queue. If this flag is set, the server will return an unroutable message with a Return method.
This is indeed working - in the producer, I am able to register a ReturnListener :
rabbitMq.confirmSelect();
rabbitMq.addReturnListener( (int replyCode, String replyText, String exchange, String routingKey, AMQP.BasicProperties properties, byte[] body) -> {
log.info("A message was returned by the broker");
});
rabbitMq.basicPublish(exchangeName, "pictures.profile", true /* mandatory */, MessageProperties.PERSISTENT_TEXT_PLAIN, messageBytes);
This will as expected print A message was returned by the broker if a message is sent with a routing key no consumer is bound to.
Now, I also want to know when the message was correctly received by a consumer. So I tried registering a ConfirmListener as well:
rabbitMq.addConfirmListener(new ConfirmListener() {
void handleAck(long deliveryTag, boolean multiple) throws IOException {
log.info("ACK message {}, multiple = ", deliveryTag, multiple);
}
void handleNack(long deliveryTag, boolean multiple) throws IOException {
log.info("NACK message {}, multiple = ", deliveryTag, multiple);
}
});
The issue here is that the ACK is sent by the broker, not by the consumer itself. So when the producer sends a message with a routing key K:
If a consumer is bound to this routing key, the broker just sends an ACK
Otherwise, the broker sends a basic.return followed by a ACK
Cf the docs:
For unroutable messages, the broker will issue a confirm once the exchange verifies a message won't route to any queue (returns an empty list of queues). If the message is also published as mandatory, the basic.return is sent to the client before basic.ack. The same is true for negative acknowledgements (basic.nack).
So while my problem is theoretically solvable using this, it would make the logic of knowing if a message was correctly consumed very complicated (especially in the context of multi threading, persistence in a database, etc.):
send a message
on receive ACK:
if no basic.return was received for this message
the message was correctly consumed
else
the message wasn't correctly consumed
on receive basic.return
the message wasn't correctly consumed
Possible other solutions
Have a queue for each file category, i.e. the queues pictures_profile, pictures_gallery, etc. Not good since it removes a lot of flexibility for the consumers
Have a "response timeout" logic in the producer. The producer sends a message. It expects an "answer" for this message in the processing_results queue. A solution would be to resend the message if it hasn't been answered to after X seconds. I don't like it though, it would create some additional tricky logic in the producer.
Produce the messages with a TTL of 0, and have the producer listen on a dead-letter exchange. This is the official suggested solution to replace the 'immediate' flag removed in RabbitMQ 3.0 (see paragraph Removal of "immediate" flag). According to the docs of the dead letter exchanges, a dead letter exchange can only be configured per-queue. So it wouldn't work here
[edit] A last solution I see is to have every consumer create a durable queue that isn't destroyed when he disconnects, and have it listen on it. Example: consumer1 creates queue-consumer-1 that is bound to the message of myExchange having a routing key abcd. The issue I foresee is that it implies to find an unique identifier for every consumer application instance (e.g. hostname of the machine it runs on).
I would love to have some inputs on that - thanks!
Related to:
RabbitMQ: persistent message with Topic exchange (not applicable here since queues are created "on the fly")
Make sure the broker holds messages until at least one consumer gets it
RabbitMQ Topic Exchange with persisted queue
[edit] Solution
I ended up implementing something that uses a basic.return, as mentioned earlier. It is actually not so tricky to implement, you just have to make sure that your method producing the messages and the method handling the basic returns are synchronized (or have a shared lock if not in the same class), otherwise you can end up with interleaved execution flows that will mess up your business logic.
I believe that an alternate exchange would be the best fit for your use case for the part regarding the identification of not routed messages.
Whenever an exchange with a configured AE cannot route a message to any queue, it publishes the message to the specified AE instead.
Basically upon creation of the "main" exchange, you configure an alternate exchange for it.
For the referenced alternate exchange, I tend to go with a fanout, then create a queue (notroutedq) binded to it.
This means any message that is not published to at least one of the queues bound to your "main" exchange will end up in the notroutedq
Now regarding your statement:
because even if the queue created by the consumers is durable, it is destroyed as soon as the consumer disconnects since it is unique to this consumer.
Seems that you have configured your queues with auto-delete set to true.
If so, in case of disconnect, as you stated, the queue is destroyed and the messages still present on the queue are lost, case not covered by the alternate exchange configuration.
It's not clear from your use case description whether you'd expect in some cases for a message to end up in more than one queue, seemed more a case of one queue per type of processing expected (while keeping the grouping flexible). If indeed the queue split is related to type of processing, I do not see the benefit of setting the queue with auto-delete, expect maybe not having to do any cleanup maintenance when you want to change the bindings.
Assuming you can go with durable queues, then a dead letter exchange (would again go with fanout) with a binding to a dlq would cover the missing cases.
not routed covered by alternate exchange
correct processing already handled by your processing_result queue
problematic processing or too long to be processed covered by the dead letter exchange, in which case the additional headers added upon dead lettering the message can even help to identify the type of actions to take
I have set up an errorHandler in a Camel route that will retry a message several times before sending the message to a dead letter channel (an activemq queue in this case). What I would like is to see an ERROR log when the message failed to be retried the max number of times and was then sent to the dead letter queue.
Looking at the docs for error handling and dead letter channels, it seems that there are 2 options available on the RedeliveryPolicy: retriesAttemptedLogLevel and retriesExhaustedLogLevel. Supposedly by default the retriesExhaustedLogLevel is already set at LoggingLevel.ERROR, but it does not appear to actually log anything when it has expended all retries and routes the message to the dead letter channel.
Here is my errorHandler definition via Java DSL.
.errorHandler(this.deadLetterChannel(MY_ACTIVE_MQ_DEAD_LETTER)
.useOriginalMessage()
.maximumRedeliveries(3)
.useExponentialBackOff()
.retriesExhaustedLogLevel(LoggingLevel.ERROR)
.retryAttemptedLogLevel(LoggingLevel.WARN))
I have explicitly set the level to ERROR now and it still does not appear to log out anything (to any logging level). On the other hand, retryAttemptedLogLevel is working just fine and will log to the appropriate LoggingLevel (ie, I could set retryAttemptedLogLevel to LoggingLevel.ERROR and see the retries as ERROR logs). However I only want a single ERROR log in the event of exhaustion, instead of an ERROR log for each retry when a subsequent retry could potentially succeed.
Maybe I am missing something, but it seems that the retriesExhaustedLogLevel does not do anything...or does not log anything if the ErrorHandler is configured as a DeadLetterChannel. Is there a configuration that I am still needing, or does this feature of RedeliveryPolicy not execute for this specific ErrorHandlerFactory?
I could also set up a route to send my exhausted messages that simply logs and routes to my dead letter channel, but I would prefer to try and use what is already built into the ErrorHandler if possible.
Updated the ErrorHandler's DeadLetterChannel to be a direct endpoint. Left the 2 logLevel configs the same. I got the 3 retry attempted WARN logs, but no ERROR log telling me the retries were exhausted. I did, however, set up a small route listening to the direct dead letter endpoint that logs, and that is working.
Not a direct solution to my desire to have the ERROR log work for the exhaustion, but is an acceptable workaround for now.
Please try with this code:
.errorHandler(deadLetterChannel("kafka:sample-dead-topic")
.maximumRedeliveries(4).redeliveryDelay(60000)
.retriesExhaustedLogLevel(LoggingLevel.WARN)
.retryAttemptedLogLevel( LoggingLevel.WARN)
.retriesExhaustedLogLevel(LoggingLevel.ERROR)
.logHandled(true)
.allowRedeliveryWhileStopping(true)
.logRetryStackTrace(true)
.logExhausted(true)
.logStackTrace(true)
.logExhaustedMessageBody(true)
)
retry is configured for 1 minute interval.
Camel application logged the errors for evry retry with the detailed information.
I need a message to be Acknowledged in a different Session than the one it is created in. If the consumed message is not ACKed in a given time, it should be added back to the queue. Is this possible using JMS( planning to use ActiveMQ as the broker).
I don't think it is possible.
If the message is consumed, it should be acknowledged by the consumer session (it can be auto or client acknowledgement). Acknowledgment is the key for guaranteed messaging and transaction mechanism. JMS server ensures the message is sent/consumed successfully using acknowledgement.
Regarding timeout question, if the JMS server didn't receive the ack in given time period, the message will be redelivered usually with JMSRedelivered flag set. I don't think it will be added back to the Queue then able to be consumed by same session or another session as a new message.