activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Timothy Bish <>
Subject Re: [Artemis 2.6.2] AMQP messages going to expiry queue, redelivery off that queue is failing
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2018 20:50:45 GMT
On 08/30/2018 07:10 PM, Dan Langford wrote:
> thanks for looking into this. what is the proper way to force for testing a
> redelivery that goes back to the broker without transactions? its probably
> like killing the session or connection. that would be if we wanted to test
> if non-transacted redeliveries were getting corrupted

The issue has been identified and fixed, should appear in the next release.

> we have a lot of people using spring-jms and as i look in the spring code...
> looking at doExecuteListener and rollbackOnExceptionIfNecessary
> it looks like if its transacted they try to rollback() and if its
> client_ack they try recover(). they probably dont handle auto_ack because
> that was acked immediately?
> speaking of this what is an appropriate way to NACK a message when using
> Client Acknowledgemnt and a JMS messageHandler? is it simply to reach the
> end of the method execution without having called message.acknowledge() or
> would it be appropriate to throw a RuntimeException (since i cannot throw a
> checked Exception out of an implementation of javax.jms.MessageListener) ?
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 8:38 AM Robbie Gemmell <>
> wrote:
>> Tim and I had an initial look at this, and can see generally where the
>> broker is internally corrupting things on send, though not yet the
>> full picture how it gets there or what to do about it. The expiration
>> is likely to be key, one difference with the non-transacted case is
>> actually going to be because its using recover() which the client
>> performs locally.
>> Robbie
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 06:23, Dan Langford <> wrote:
>>> ok i wrote 3 test files. I don't know the best way to get them to you
>>> easily. hopefully a Gist is ok.
>>> you can copy those 3 files straight to
>> ./tests/integration-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/tests/integration/amqp
>>> The test JMSTransactedRedeliveryTest::testAMQPProducerAMQPConsumer proves
>>> that a transacted client can .rollback() a handful of times and still be
>>> able to consume the redelivered message later on.
>>> The test JMSTransactedRedeliveryBugTest::testAMQPProducerAMQPConsumer
>> shows
>>> that if a message had been expired and now a transacted client is
>>> attempting to consume it the client only has 2 chances before the broker
>>> starts sending the message in a way that will not parse correctly
>>> The test JMSNonTransactedRedeliveryBugTest::testAMQPProducerAMQPConsumer
>> shows
>>> that if a message had been expired a non-transacted client has no
>> troubles
>>> reliably accessing the redelivered message from broker
>>> as you can tell i am mostly concerned about AMQP->AMQP for my use case.
>>> some of those other combos are failing some of these tests in other ways.
>>> naturally you can address those as you see fit but for my client the
>>> AMQP->AMQP is a roadblocker.
>>> let me know if you can determine why the broker is sending an extra null
>>> character in the payload on the third time the messages attempts
>> delivery.
>>> maybe we are doing something incorrectly.
>>> This has been more of an issue than i thought due to the fact that Spring
>>> default to enabling transactions. in all of my initial tests i couldn't
>>> reproduce it because i prefer the straight simplified jms api from 2.0
>> and
>>> that defaults to sessions not being transacted. that being said nearly
>> all
>>> of my clients prefer using Spring Boot autoconfigurer and other spring
>>> pieces which happen to default to transacted sessions.  i can now have
>> some
>>> of them workaround but others of them are requiring the transaction.
>>> also as a reminder and for context here is a link to the initial
>>> conversation i had with the Qpid Jms Client devs who pointed out to me
>> the
>>> erroneous null character in the message transfer from the broker:
>>> thread.html/b1fd9c09a1f66f5529601a8651fbb96585c011b22bbd84e07c4f23b1@%
>>> thank you so much for your time
>>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:19 PM Timothy Bish <>
>> wrote:
>>>> On 08/13/2018 07:12 PM, Dan Langford wrote:
>>>>> some of my users are attempting a pattern to deduplicate messages
>> based
>>>> on
>>>>> a time window instead of a fixed amount of space (a duplicate id
>> cache)
>>>>> so far the concept has been working very well. So they send their
>>>>> messages (qpid-jms-client) into a Last Value Queue with an
>> appropriate
>>>>> identifier in the _AMQ_LVQ_NAME. They also set a TimeToLive on the
>>>> message
>>>>> that is essentially the lag they will allow as they want to wait for
>>>>> possible duplicates. If any duplicates come in the Last Value Queue
>>>>> behavior is replacing the older message with the newer message until
>> the
>>>>> expiration. expired messages are delivered to the preconfigured
>> expiry
>>>>> queue where their application is listening. This is not perfect but
>> its
>>>> not
>>>>> intended to be. Its just intended to reduce additional unnecessary
>>>>> processing and they understand this is not a guarantee. It really
>> helps
>>>>> with a system that produces messages in a way that has flurries of
>>>>> "notifications" about the same assetID over and over again.
>>>>> BUT where we are seeing is a problem is when we are consuming from
>> the
>>>>> queue used to hold expired messages and we toss some exception and
>> the
>>>>> message needs to be redelivered. the first time or two the message is
>>>>> redelivered it is delivered OK. But when the JMSXDeliveryCount is
>> about 3
>>>>> or 4 (we use redelivery delay and multipliers to spread these out)
>> our
>>>>> qpid-jms-client stops being able to read the messages.
>>>>> we were only able to reproduce this when an AMQP message expired
>> onto the
>>>>> queue. (expired from a LVQ in case that is relevant). if we place the
>>>>> message directly on a queue and test different exception and
>> redelivery
>>>>> scenarios we cannot reproduce this behavior.
>>>>> i enable the qpid-jms-client frame logging (via env variable
>>>>> PN_TRACE_FRM=true) and i saw that in the situation when the client
>> code
>>>>> cannot access the payload, even though the broker WAS still sending
>> the
>>>>> payload. so i thought it was some odd issue with the client. The
>> Apache
>>>>> Qpid team responded that the issue seems to be that the broker
>> starts to
>>>>> send some ill formed payloads in this scenario. i dont want to
>> repeat the
>>>>> stack traces and their response, you can read those here
>>>>> would it be helpful if i tested that this happens if there is not a
>> LVQ
>>>>> involved? i could have a message in a non-LVQ expire to another
>> queue and
>>>>> see if redeliveries over their get messed up after a few attempts.
>> For
>>>> the
>>>>> record this is AMQP for producing and consuming. i do notice the
>> messages
>>>>> waiting in the expiry queue have much more headers messages sent
>> directly
>>>>> to a queue from client code. they seem to be headers full of
>> information
>>>>> about the message as it left the previous queue. I tried to send a
>>>> message
>>>>> directly to the expiry queue with all these headers to determine if
>> it
>>>> was
>>>>> the existence of one of these specifically that trigger the malformed
>>>> frame
>>>>> but was not able to fully set all those headers. the JMSDeliverCount
>>>> (type
>>>>> Long) was the one that the client would not let me set and as a
>> result i
>>>>> could not test. for clarity thought i dont know that the issue
>> exists due
>>>>> to a header that is just what i saw as a difference between messages
>> be
>>>>> delivered to the queue by client code versus messages expiring from
>> one
>>>>> queue to another.
>>>>> please look over the linked thread on the qpid list and let me know
>> if
>>>> you
>>>>> know why a message transfer fram would become malformed after a few
>>>> failed
>>>>> deliveries only if the message expired onto the current queue.
>>>>> thanks so much
>>>> A great place to start is to create a unit test that reproduces the
>>>> issue.  You can look at the Artemis unit tests for AMQP to get some
>>>> inspiration on how to set one up.  Then try and create the smallest
>>>> possible test that can reproduce the issue to make it easier to narrow
>>>> in on where the issue might be.
>>>> The AMQP tests in Artemis are located here:
>>>> --
>>>> Tim Bish

Tim Bish
twitter: @tabish121

View raw message