activemq-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Langford <danlangf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Artemis 2.6.2] AMQP messages going to expiry queue, redelivery off that queue is failing
Date Sun, 14 Oct 2018 16:40:36 GMT
Just for the record: even though we could easily recreate this problem
using transactions, and our initial “workaround” involved not using
transactions, we have recently seen this issue when no transactions where
involved.

Reading through the Jira description it looks like this is not specifically
about transactions so I am hopeful that the fix will address even our
current issues.

Since our users are now focusing on this again I will probably build from
master to test the fix



On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 4:46 PM Dan Langford <danlangford@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you guys so much!
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 2:50 PM Timothy Bish <tabish121@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-2082
>>
>> >
>> > we have a lot of people using spring-jms and as i look in the spring
>> code...
>> >
>> https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/blob/master/spring-jms/src/main/java/org/springframework/jms/listener/AbstractMessageListenerContainer.java
>> > 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 <
>> robbie.gemmell@gmail.com>
>> > 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 <danlangford@gmail.com>
>> 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.
>> >>> https://gist.github.com/danlangford/071e738225ec0c68dd470816b977499b
>> >>>
>> >>> 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:
>> >>> https://lists.apache.org/
>> >>> thread.html/b1fd9c09a1f66f5529601a8651fbb96585c011b22bbd84e07c4f23b1@
>> %
>> >> 3Cusers.qpid.apache.org%3E
>> >>>
>> >>> thank you so much for your time
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 1:19 PM Timothy Bish <tabish121@gmail.com>
>> >> 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
>> >> AMQP
>> >>>>> 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
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b1fd9c09a1f66f5529601a8651fbb96585c011b22bbd84e07c4f23b1@%3Cusers.qpid.apache.org%3E
>> >>>>> 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:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/tree/master/tests/integration-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/activemq/artemis/tests/integration/amqp
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Tim Bish
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>>
>> --
>> Tim Bish
>> twitter: @tabish121
>> blog: http://timbish.blogspot.com/
>>
>>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message