Google Pub/Sub with distributed subscribers in Node.js - node.js

Question

We are attempting to migrate a message processing app from Kafka to Google Pub/Sub and it's just not working as expected.
We are running in Kubernetes (Google Cloud) where there may be multiple pods processing messages on the same subscription. Topics and subscriptions are all created using terraform and are more or less permanent. They are not created/destroyed on the fly by the application.
In our development environment, where message throughput is rather low, everything works just fine. But when we scale up to production levels, everything seems to fall apart. We get big backlogs of unacked messages, and yet some pods are not receiving any messages at all. And then, all of a sudden, the backlog will just go away, but then climb again.
We are using the nodejs client library provided by google: #google-cloud/pubsub:3.1.0
Each instance of the application subscribes to the same named subscription, and according to the documentation, messages should be distributed to each subscriber. But that is not happening. Some pods will be consuming messages rapidly, while others sit idle.
Every message is processed in a try/catch block and we are not observing any errors being thrown. So, as far as we know, every received message is getting acked.
I am suspicious that, as pods are terminated with autoscaling or updated deployments, that we are not properly closing subscriptions, but there are no examples addressing a distributed environment and I have not found any document that specifically addresses how to properly manage resources. It is also worth mentioning that the app has multiple subscriptions to different topics.
When a pod shuts down, what actions should be taken on the Subscription object and the PubSub client object? Maybe that's not even the issue, but it seems like a reasonable place to start.
When we start a subscription we do something like this:
private exampleSubscribe(): Subscription {
// one suggestion for having multiple subscriptions in the same app
// was to use separate clients for each
const pubSubClient = new PubSub({
// use a regional endpoint for message ordering
apiEndpoint: 'us-central1-pubsub.googleapis.com:443',
});
pubSubClient.projectId = 'my-project-id';
const sub = pubSubClient.subscription('my-subscription-name', {
// have tried various values for maxMessage from 5 to the default of 1000
flowControl: { maxMessages: 250, allowExcessMessages: false },
ackDeadline: 30,
});
sub.on('message', async (message) => {
await this.exampleMessageProcessing(message);
});
return sub;
}
private async exampleMessageProcessing(message: Message): Promise<void> {
try {
// do some cool stuff
} catch (error) {
// log the error
} finally {
message.ack();
}
}
Upon termination of a pod, we do this:
private async exampleCloseSub(sub: Subscription) {
try {
sub.removeAllListeners('message');
await sub.close();
// note that we do nothing with the PubSub
// client object -- should it also be closed?
} catch (error) {
// ignore error, we are shutting down
}
}
When running with Kafka, we can easily keep up with the message pace with usually no more than 2 pods. So I know that we are not running into issues of it simply taking too long to process each message.
Why are messages being left unacked? Why are pods not receiving messages when there is clearly a large backlog? What is the correct way to shut down one subscriber on a shared subscription?

Answer 1

It turns out that the issue was an improper implementation of message ordering.
The official docs for message ordering in Pub/Sub are rather brief:
https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/docs/ordering
Not much there regarding how to implement an ordering key or the implications of message ordering on horizontal scaling.
Though they do link to some external resources, one of which is this blog post:
https://medium.com/google-cloud/google-cloud-pub-sub-ordered-delivery-1e4181f60bc8
In our case, we did not have enough distinct ordering keys to allow for proper distribution of messages across subscribers/pods.
So this was definitely an RTFM situation, or more accurately: Read The Fine Blog Post Referred To By The Manual. I would have much preferred that the important details were actually in the official documentation. Is that to much to ask for?