We have an asterisk system which has only 3XXX SIP phones. And we have some queues.
I am using AddQueueMember application to add the agents to queues dynamically as the following
AddQueueMember(queue_name,SIP/5XXX#10.10.X.X)
AddQueueMember(queue_name,SIP/6XXX#10.10.X.X)
AddQueueMember(queue_name,SIP/7XXX#10.10.X.X)
and after queue show command
Members:
SIP/5XXX#10.10.X.X(dynamic) (Invalid) has taken no calls yet
SIP/6XXX#10.10.X.X (dynamic) (Invalid) has taken no calls yet
SIP/7XXX#10.10.X.X (dynamic) (Invalid)has taken no calls yet
But when i try to add incoming calls to this "queue_name" it says Unable to join the queue.
On the other hand when i add an registered asterisk member to this "queue_name" which has 3XXX phone number as i told you above. It is working and the queue can handle all the incoming calls with rr strategy. And it is valid for all the queues in my systems.
AddQueueMember(queue_name,SIP/5XXX#10.10.X.X)
AddQueueMember(queue_name,SIP/6XXX#10.10.X.X)
AddQueueMember(queue_name,SIP/7XXX#10.10.X.X)
AddQueueMember(queue_name,SIP/3XXX)
and again after queue show command
Members:
SIP/5XXX#10.10.X.X(dynamic) (Invalid) has taken no calls yet
SIP/6XXX#10.10.X.X (dynamic) (Invalid) has taken no calls yet
SIP/7XXX#10.10.X.X (dynamic) (Invalid) has taken no calls yet
SIP/3489 (dynamic) (Not in use) has taken no calls yet
So is there a way for queues to handle incoming calls without adding this 3XXX phones? Can you show me a better solution for that?
Thanks and Regards
You will have to add them as SIP peers in /etc/sip.conf, for example:
[5001]
disallow=all
host=10.10.X.X
type=friend
dtmfmode=rfc2833
allow=alaw
qualify=yes
canreinvite=yes
insecure=port
context=somecontext
and then do AddQueueMember(queue_name,SIP/5001). It all depends on your configuration.
If 10.10.X.X is your dial out trunk registered in sip.conf where 5XXX extensions are registered, then AddQueueMember(queue_name,SIP/YourDialOutTrunk/5XXX) should work.
Related
Suppose I have an IoT device which I'm about to control (lets say switch on/off) and monitor (e.g. collect temperature readings). It seems MQTT could be the right fit. I could publish messages to the device to control it and the device could publish messages to a broker to report temperature readings. So far so good.
The problems start to occur when I try to design the API to control the device.
Lets day the device subscribes to two topics:
/device-id/control/on
/device-id/control/off
Then I publish messages to these topics in some order. But given the fact that messaging is typically an asynchronous process there are no guarantees on the order of messages received by the device.
So in case two messages are published in the following order:
/device-id/control/on
/device-id/control/off
they could be received in the reversed order leaving the device turned on, which can have dramatic consequences, depending on the context.
Of course the API could be designed in some other way, for example there could be just one topic
/device-id/control
and the payload of individual messages would carry the meaning of an individual message (on/off). So in case messages are published to this topic in a given order they are expected to be received in the exact same order on the device.
But what if the order of publishes to individual topics cannot be guaranteed? Suppose the following architecture of a system for IoT devices:
/ control service \
application -> broker -> control service -> broker -> IoT device
\ control service /
The components of the system are:
an application which effectively controls the device by publishing messages to a broker
a typical message broker
a control service with some business logic
The important part is that as in most modern distributed systems the control service is a distributed, multi instance entity capable of processing multiple control messages from the application at a time. Therefore the order of messages published by the application can end up totally mixed when delivered to the IoT device.
Now given the fact that most MQTT brokers only implement QoS0 and QoS1 but no QoS2 it gets even more interesting as such control messages could potentially be delivered multiple times (assuming QoS1 - see https://stackoverflow.com/a/30959058/1776942).
My point is that separate topics for control messages is a bad idea. The same goes for a single topic. In both cases there are no message delivery order guarantees.
The only solution to this particular issue that comes to my mind is message versioning so that old (out-dated) messages could simply be skipped when delivered after another message with more recent version property.
Am I missing something?
Is message versioning the only solution to this problem?
Am I missing something?
Most definitely. The example you brought up is a generic control system, being attached to some message-oriented scheme. There are a number of patterns that can be used when referring to a message-based architecture. This article by Microsoft categorizes message patterns into two primary classes:
Commands and
Events
The most generic pattern of command behavior is to issue a command, then measure the state of the system to verify the command was carried out. If you forget to verify, your system has an open loop. Such open loops are (unfortunately) common in IT systems (because it's easy to forget), and often result in bugs and other bad behaviors such as the one described above. So, the proper way to handle a command is:
Issue the command
Inquire as to the state of the system
Evaluate next action
Events, on the other hand, are simply fired off. As the publisher of an event, it is not my business to worry about who receives the event, in what order, etc. Now, it should also be pointed out that the use of any decent message broker (e.g. RabbitMQ) generally carries strong guarantees that messages will be delivered in the order which they were originally published. Note that this does not mean they will be processed in order.
So, if you treat a command as an event, your system is guaranteed to act up sooner or later.
Is message versioning the only solution to this problem?
Message versioning typically refers to a property of the message class itself, rather than a particular instance of the class. It is often used when multiple versions of a message-based API exist and must be backwards-compatible with one another.
What you are instead referring to is unique message identifiers. Guids are particularly handy for making sure that each message gets its own unique id. However, I would argue that de-duplication in message-based architectures is an anti-pattern. One of the consequences of using messaging is that duplicates are possible, so you should try to design your system behaviors to be stateless and idempotent. If this is not possible, it should be considered that messaging may not be the correct communication solution for the need.
Using the command-event dichotomy as an example, you could perform the following transaction:
The controller issues the command, assigning a unique identifier to the command.
The control system receives the command and turns on.
The control system publishes the "light on" event notification, containing the unique id of the command that was used to turn on the light.
The controller receives the notification and correlates it to the original command.
In the event that the controller doesn't receive notification after some timeout, the controller can retry the command. Note that "light on" is an idempotent command, in that multiple calls to it will have the same effect.
When state changes, send the new state immediately and after that periodically every x seconds. With this solution your systems gets into desired state, after some time, even when it temporarily disconnects from the network (low battery).
BTW: You did not miss anything.
Apart from the comment that most brokers don't support QOS2 (I suspect you mean that a number of broker as a service offerings don't support QOS2, such as Amazon's AWS IoT service) you have covered most of the major points.
If message order really is that important then you will have to include some form of ordering marker in the message payload, be this a counter or timestamp.
I have no clue if it's better to ask this here, or over on Programmers.SE, so if I have this wrong, please migrate.
First, a bit about what I'm trying to implement. I have a node.js application that takes messages from one source (a socket.io client), and then does processing on the message, which might result in zero or more messages back out, either to the sender, or other clients within that group.
For the processing, I would like to essentially just shove the message into a queue, then it works its way through various message processors that might kick off their own items, and eventually, the bit running socket.io is informed "Hey, send this message back"
As a concrete example, say a user signs into the service, that sign in message is then placed in the queue, where the authorization processor gets it, does it's thing, then places a message back in the queue saying the client's been authorized. This goes back to the socket.io socket that is connected to the client, along with other clients that might be interested. It can also go to other subsystems that might want to do more processing on authorization (looking up user info, sending more info to the client based on their data, etc).
If I wanted strong coupling, this would be easy, but I tried that before, and it just goes to a mess of spaghetti code that's very fragile, and I would like to avoid that. Another wrench in the setup is this should be cluster-able, which is where the real problem comes in. There might be more than one, say, authorization processor running. But the authorization message should be processed only once.
So, in short, I'm looking for a pattern/technique that will allow me to, essentially, have multiple "groups" of subscribers for a message, and the message will be processed only once per group.
I thought about maybe having each instance of a processor generate a unique name that would be used as a list in Reids. This name would then be registered with some sort of dispatch handler, and placed into a set for that group of subscribers. Then when a message arrives, the dispatch pulls a random member out of that set, and places it into that list. While it seems like this would work, it seems somewhat over-complicated and fragile.
The core problem is I've never designed a system like this, so I'm not even sure the proper terms to use or look up. If anyone can point me in the right direction for this, I would be most appreciative.
I think what your describing is similar to https://www.getbridge.com/ service. I it but ended up writing my own based on zeromq, it allows you to register services, req -> <- rec and channels which are pub / sub workers.
As for the design, I used a client -> broker -> services & channels which are all plug and play using auto discovery, you have the services register their schema with the brokers who open a tcp connection so that brokers on other servers can communicate with that broker groups services. Then internal services and clients connect via unix sockets or ipc channels which ever is preferred.
I ended up wrapping around the redis publish/subscribe functions a bit to do this. Each type of message processor gets a "group name", and there can be multiple instances of the processor within that group (so multiple instances of the program can run for clustering).
When publishing a message, I generate an incremental ID, then store the message in a string key with that ID, then publish the message ID.
On the receiving end, the first thing the subscriber does is attempt to add the message ID it just got from the publisher into a set of received messages for that group with sadd. If sadd returns 0, the message has already been grabbed by another instance, and it just returns. If it returns 1, the full message is pulled out of the string key and sent to the listener.
Of course, this relies on redis being single threaded, which I imagine will continue to be the case.
What you might be looking for is an AMQP protocol implementation,where you can have queue get custom exchanges,and implement a pub-sub model.
RabbitMQ - a popular amqp protocol implementation with lots of libraries
it also has node.js library
If there are no longer any publishers or subscribers reading nor writing to a Queue, Topic, or Subscription, because of crashes or other abnormal terminations (instance restart, etc.), is that Queue/Topic/Subscription effectively orphaned?
I tested this by creating a few Queues, and then terminating the applications. Those Queues were still on the Service Bus a long time later. It seems that they will just stay there forever. That would be wonderful if we WANTED that behavior, but in this case, we do not.
How can we detect and delete these Queues, Topics, and Subscriptions? They will count towards Azure limits, etc, and we cannot have these orphaned processes every time an instance is restarted/patched/crashes.
If it helps make the question clearer, this is a unique situation in which the Queues/Topics/Subscriptions have special names, or special Filters, and a very limited set of publishers (1) and subscribers (1) for a limited time. This is not a case where we want survivability. These are instance-specific response channels. Whether we use Queues or Subscriptions is immaterial. If the instance is gone, so is the need for that Queue (or Subscription).
This is part of a solution where each web role has a dedicated response channel that it monitors. At any time, this web role may have dozens of requests pending via other messaging channels (Queues/Topics), and it is waiting for the answers on multiple threads. We need the response to come back to the thread that placed the message, so that the web role can respond to the caller. It is no good in this situation to simply have a Subscription based on the machine, because it will be receiving messages for other threads. We need each publishing thread to establish a dedicated response channel, so that the only thing on that channel is the response for that thread.
Even if we use Subscriptions (with some kind of instance-related filter) to do a long-polling receive operation on the Subscription, if the web role instance dies, that Subscription will be orphaned, correct?
This question can be boiled down like so:
If there are no more publishers or subscribers to a Queue/Topic/Subscription, then that service is effectively orphaned. How can those orphans be detected and cleaned up?
In this scenario you are looking for the Queue/Subscriptions to be "dynamic" in nature. They would be created and removed based on use as opposed to the current explicit provisioning model for these entities. Service Bus provides you with the APIs to perform create/delete operations so you can plug these on role OnStart/OnStop events appropriately. If those operations fail for some reason then the orphaned entities will exist. Again you can run clean up operation on them based on some unique identifier for the name of the entities. An example of this can be seen here: http://windowsazurecat.com/2011/08/how-to-simplify-scale-inter-role-communication-using-windows-azure-service-bus/
In the near future we will add more metadata and query capabilities to Queues/Topics/Subscriptions so you can see when they were last accessed and make cleanup decisions.
Service Bus Queues are built using the “brokered messaging” infrastructure designed to integrate applications or application components that may span multiple communication protocols, data contracts, trust domains, and/or network environments. The allows for a mechanism to communicate reliably with durable messaging.
If a client (publisher) sends a message to a service bus queue and then crashes the message will be stored on the Queue until as consumer reads the message off the queue. Also if your consumer dies and restarts it will just poll the queue and pick up any work that is waiting for it (You can scale out and have multiple consumers reading from queue to increase throughput), Service Bus Queues allow you to decouple your applications via durable cloud gateway analogous to MSMQ on-premises (or other queuing technology).
What I'm really trying to say is that you won't get an orphaned queue, you might get poisoned messages that you will need to handled, this blog post gives some very detailed information re: Service Bus Queues and their Capacity and Quotas which might give you a better understanding http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/hh767287.aspx
Re: Queue Management, you can do this via Visual Studio (1.7 SDK & Tools) or there is an excellent tool called Service Bus Explorer that will make your life easier for queue managagment: http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsazure/Service-Bus-Explorer-f2abca5a
*Note the default maximum number of queues is 10,000 (per service namespace, this can be increased via a support call)
As Abhishek Lai mentioned there is no orphan detecting capability supported.
Orphan detection can be implement externally in multiple ways.
For example, whenever you send/receive a message, update a timestamp in an SQL database to indicate that the queue/tropic/subscription is still active. This timestamp can then be used to determine orphans.
If your process will crash which is very much possible there will be issue with the message delivery within the queue however queue will still be available to process your request. Handling Application Crashes and Unreadable Messages with Windows Azure Service Bus queues are described here:
The Service Bus provides functionality to help you gracefully recover from errors in your application or difficulties processing a message. If a receiver application is unable to process the message for some reason, then it can call the Abandon method on the received message (instead of the Complete method). This will cause the Service Bus to unlock the message within the queue and make it available to be received again, either by the same consuming application or by another consuming application.
In the event that the application crashes after processing the message but before the Complete request is issued, then the message will be redelivered to the application when it restarts. This is often called At Least Once Processing, that is, each message will be processed at least once but in certain situations the same message may be redelivered. If the scenario cannot tolerate duplicate processing, then application developers should add additional logic to their application to handle duplicate message delivery. This is often achieved using the MessageId property of the message, which will remain constant across delivery attempts.
If there are no longer any processes reading nor writing to a queue, because of crashes or other abnormal terminations (instance restart, etc.), is that queue effectively orphaned?
No the queue is in place to allow communication to occur via Brokered Messages, if all your apps die for some reason then the queue still exists and will be there when they become alive again, it's the communication channel for loosely decoupled applications. Regards Billing 'Messages are charged based on the number of messages sent to, or delivered by, the Service Bus during the billing month' you won't be charged if a queue exists but nobody is using it.
I tested this by creating a few queues, and then terminating the
applications. Those queues were still on the machine a long time
later.
The whole point of the queue is to guarantee message delivery of loosely decoupled applications. Think of the queue as an entity or application in its own right with high availability (SLA) as its hosted in Azure, your producer/consumers can die/restart and the queue will be active in Azure. *Note I got a bit confused with your wording re: "still on the machine a long time later", the queue doesn't actually live on your machine, it sits up in Azure in a designated service bus namespace. You can view and managed the queues via the tools I pointed out in the previous answer.
How can we detect and delete these queues, as they will count towards
Azure limits, etc.
As stated above the default maximum number of queues is 10,000 (per service namespace, this can be increased via a support call), queue management can be done via the tools stated in the other answer. You should only be looking to delete queue's when you no longer have producer/consumers looking to write to them (i.e. never again). You can of course create and delete queues in your producer/consumer applications via the namespaceManager.QueueExists, more information here How to Use Service Bus Queues
If it helps make the question clearer, this is a unique situation in which the queues have special names, and a very limited set of publishers (1) and subscribers (1) for a limited time.
It sounds like you need to use Topics & Subscriptions How to Use Service Bus Topics/Subscriptions, this link also has a section on 'How to Delete Topics and Subscriptions' If you have a very limited lifetime then you could handle topic creation/deletion in your app's otherwise you could have have a separate Queue/Topic/Subscription setup/deletion script to handle this logic...
I'm creating small system as prove concept.
I need to configure few 5-10 call queues that will have mix of softphones (SIP) and normal gsm mobiles (PSTN) agents that can login and logout of queue.
I'm new to asterisk and whole voip. So after some research I think it is possible but not sure how to do it.
You can make login/logout for any user using asterisk applications AddQueueMember() and RemoveQueueMember(). For example PSTN user can be added in queue in such way:
exten => s,n,AddQueueMember(100,DAHDI/g0/1234567)
Also in queues for PSTN users most possibly you need to use custom device states, to make queue know if PSTN user already in queue call. It is done by function DEVICE_STATE() and stateinterface option of AddQueueMember().
We are thinking of speparate Queues for:
Request (RequestQueue)
Response (ResponseQueue)
Scenario:
Worker role will putMessage to RequestQueue e.g. GetOrders
Third party will monitor RequestQueue. If they see GetOrders
request they will getMessage, process them and put the response in
ResponseQueue.
Question:
If I putMessage to RequestQueue, I will like to get results back from ResponseQueue. Is there easy way to achieve this and how?
Thank you.
No, this is not possible. If you put a message in a queue, you must pop the message from the same queue (it will not magically appear in any other queue). Perhaps if you explained more why you think you need two separate queues here for push/pop, there might be a more expansive answer and suggestion.
EDIT: Perhaps I misunderstood your intent. I guess I don't get the question now - can you help clarify. You seem to be asking how to put a message on one queue, acknowledge it by putting another message on another queue, and have someone read the acknowledgment from the second queue? What is the question here? I should point out that you won't want some 3rd party to read directly from a Windows Azure queue as that would require sharing the master storage key with them (a non-starter). Perhaps you are looking for how to have 3rd parties read from a queue?
EDIT 2: Sounds like you want to consume messages with a 3rd Party. Windows Azure queues probably are not a good fit as I mentioned due to security reasons (you need to share the master key). Instead, you could either layer a WCF service over the queue (using queues via proxy) or use the queueing from the Service Bus - that will allow you to have separate credentials. Using the Service Bus capability might be the right choice here in terms of simplicity. Take a look here for demos.
Have a worker of some sort monitor the question queue, then post an answer to the answer queue. Interface out the queue managers and you shouldn't have any problems using any sort of queue tech. Also, the worker doesn't really need to use a queue for answers..
Caveats:
Worker service has access to both queues
Each queue item contains a serialized foreign key to identify themselves.