What is the best way to handle 'urgent' messages in a Windows Azure Worker role?
I have a worker role that starts, does an infinite while(true) loop and in this loop:
reads to see if the queue has messages
processes them and deletes them
if there are no more messages in goes to sleep with Thread.Sleep(interval) for smaller intervals (10s) at first and progressively increases the sleep interval up to 2 minutes
if a message appears in the queue it resets the sleep interval to 0s and goes back to step one
The problem is that if the worker is sleeping for 2 minutes and a message appears in the queue I would like to wake up the worker and not wait for the remaining time.
Is there any way to get the worker role's instance and tell it to wake up?
I thought about writing something in the database, but then I have the same problem, even if I have a role that does this, how would I go about waking up the other worker role that is already sleeping?
This is one of the downsides of using Windows Azure Storage Queues. You have to make a choice between cost and latency. If you want to optimize costs you'll implement a backoff policy (like you did) but this means this will have an impact on when your message will be processed (increased latency).
In your case it might be interesting to evaluate Windows Azure Service Bus Queues (read about the differences here). The advantage of using Service Bus Queues is that it supports long-polling, meaning it will keep a connection to the server until a message arrives (or the timeout elapsed).
Here is some example code you would typically write (you will still need to manage exceptions etc...):
QueueClient queueClient = factory.CreateQueueClient("myqueue");
while (true)
{
BrokeredMessage msg = queueClient.Receive(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(45));
if (msg != null)
{
var request = msg.GetBody<CreateOrderMessage>();
// Do something
msg.Complete();
}
}
Here are a few good resources that will get you started:
http://www.cloudcasts.net/devguide/Default.aspx?id=12042
http://windowsazurecat.com/2011/08/how-to-simplify-scale-inter-role-communication-using-windows-azure-service-bus/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windowsazure/hh697709.aspx
Just sleep for less time. Why are you sleeping for two minutes instead of, say, just one second? Polling a queue once per second from one instance will cost about $0.25 per month in transactions.
Related
Context:
We have micro service which consumes(subscribes)messages from 50+ RabbitMQ queues.
Producing message for this queue happens in two places
The application process when encounter short delayed execution business logic ( like send emails OR notify another service), the application directly sends the message to exchange ( which in turn it is sent to the queue ).
When we encounter long/delayed execution business logic We have messages table which has entries of messages which has to be executed after some time.
Now we have cron worker which runs every 10 mins which scans the messages table and pushes the messages to RabbitMQ.
Scenario:
Let's say the messages table has 10,000 messages which will be queued in next cron run,
9.00 AM - Cron worker runs and it queues 10,000 messages to RabbitMQ queue.
We do have subscribers which are listening to the queue and start consuming the messages, but due to some issue in the system or 3rd party response time delay it takes each message to complete 1 Min.
9.10 AM - Now cron worker once again runs next 10 Mins and see there are yet 9000+ messages yet to get completed and time is also crossed so once again it pushes 9000+ duplicates messages to Queue.
Note: The subscribers which consumes the messages are idempotent, so there is no issue in duplicate processing
Design Idea I had in my mind but not best logic
I can have 4 status ( RequiresQueuing, Queued, Completed, Failed )
Whenever a message is inserted i can set the status to RequiresQueuing
Next when cron worker picks and pushes the messages successfully to Queue i can set it to Queued
When subscribers completes it mark the queue status as Completed / Failed.
There is an issue with above logic, let's say RabbitMQ somehow goes down OR in some use we have purge the queue for maintenance.
Now the messages which are marked as Queued is in wrong state, because they have to be once again identified and status needs to be changed manually.
Another Example
Let say I have RabbitMQ Queue named ( events )
This events queue has 5 subscribers, each subscribers gets 1 message from the queue and post this event using REST API to another micro service ( event-aggregator ). Each API Call usually takes 50ms.
Use Case:
Due to high load the numbers events produced becomes 3x.
Also the micro service ( event-aggregator ) which accepts the event also became slow in processing, the response time increased from 50ms to 1 Min.
Cron workers follows your design mentioned above and queues the message for each min. Now the queue is becoming too large, but i cannot also increase the number of subscribers because the dependent micro service ( event-aggregator ) is also lagging.
Now the question is, If keep sending the messages to events queue, it is just bloating the queue.
https://www.rabbitmq.com/memory.html - While reading this page, i found out that rabbitmq won't even accept the connection if it reaches high watermark fraction (default is 40%). Of course this can be changed, but this requires manual intervention.
So if the queue length increases it affects the rabbitmq memory, that is reason i thought of throttling at producer level.
Questions
How can i throttle my cron worker to skip that particular run or somehow inspect the queue and identify it already being heavily loaded so don't push the messages ?
How can i handle the use cases i said above ? Is there design which solves my problem ? Is anyone faced the same issue ?
Thanks in advance.
Answer
Check the accepted answer Comments for the throttling using queueCount
You can combine QoS - (Quality of service) and Manual ACK to get around this problem.
Your exact scenario is documented in https://www.rabbitmq.com/tutorials/tutorial-two-python.html. This example is for python, you can refer other examples as well.
Let says you have 1 publisher and 5 worker scripts. Lets say these read from the same queue. Each worker script takes 1 min to process a message. You can set QoS at channel level. If you set it to 1, then in this case each worker script will be allocated only 1 message. So we are processing 5 messages at a time. No new messages will be delivered until one of the 5 worker scripts does a MANUAL ACK.
If you want to increase the throughput of message processing, you can increase the worker nodes count.
The idea of updating the tables based on message status is not a good option, DB polling is the main reason that system uses queues and it would cause a scaling issue. At one point you have to update the tables and you would bottleneck because of locking and isolations levels.
I am using the Azure service bus queue for one of my requirements. The requirement is simple, an azure function will act as an API and creates multiple jobs in the queue. The function is scalable and on-demand new instance creation. The job which microservice creates will be processed by a windows service. So the sender is Azure function and the receiver is windows service. Since the azure function is scalable, there will be multiple numbers of functions will be executed in parallel. So, the number of jobs getting created into the queue will be in parallel, and probably one job in every 500MS. Windows service is a single instance that is a Queue listener listens to this Queue and executes in parallel. So, the number of senders might be more, the receiver is one instance. And each job can run in parallel must be limited(4, since it takes more time and CPU) Right now, I am using Aure Service Bus Queue with the following configuration. My doubt is which configuration produces the best performance for this particular requirement.
The deletion of the Job in the queue will not be an issue for me. So, Can I use Delete instead of Peek-Lock?
Also, right now, the number of items receiving by the listener is not in order. I want to maintain an order in which it got created. My requirement is maximum performance. The job is done by the windows service is a CPU intensive task, that's why I have limited to 4 since the system is a 4 Core.
Max delivery count: 4, Message lock duration: 5 min, MaxConcurrentCalls: 4 (In listener). I am new to the service bus, I need a suggestion for this.
One more doubt is, let's consider the listener got 4 jobs in parallel and start execution. One job completed its execution and became a completed status. So the listener will pick the next item immediately or wait for all the 4 jobs to be completed (MaxConcurrentCalls: 4).
The deletion of the Job in the queue will not be an issue for me. So, Can I use Delete instead of Peek-Lock?
Receiving messages in PeekLock receive mode will less performant than ReceiveAndDelete. You'll be saving roundtrips to the broker to complete messages.
Max delivery count: 4, Message lock duration: 5 min, MaxConcurrentCalls: 4 (In listener). I am new to the service bus, I need a suggestion for this.
MaxDeliveryCount is how many times a message can be attempted before it's dead-lettered. It appears to be equal to the number of cores, but it shouldn't. Could be just a coincidence.
MessageLockDuration will only matter if you use PeekLock receive mode. For ReceiveAndDelete it won't matter.
As for Concurrency, even though your work is CPU bound, I'd benchmark if higher concurrency would be possible.
An additional parameter on the message receiver to look into would be PrefetchCount. It can improve the overall performance by making fewer roundtrips to the broker.
One more doubt is, let's consider the listener got 4 jobs in parallel and start execution. One job completed its execution and became a completed status. So the listener will pick the next item immediately or wait for all the 4 jobs to be completed (MaxConcurrentCalls: 4).
The listener will immediately start processing the 5th message as your concurrency is set to 4 and one message processing has been completed.
Also, right now, the number of items receiving by the listener is not in order. I want to maintain an order in which it got created.
To process messages in the order they were sent in you will need to send and receive messages using sessions.
My requirement is maximum performance. The job is done by the windows service is a CPU intensive task, that's why I have limited to 4 since the system is a 4 Core.
There are multiple things to take into consideration. The location of your Windows Service location would impact the latency and message throughput. Scaling out could help, etc.
I am planning to use a queue centric design as described here for one of my applications. That essentially consists of using a Azure queue where work requests are queued from the UI. A worker reads from the queue, processes and deletes the message from the queue.
The 'work' done by the worker is within a transaction so if the worker fails before completing, upon restart it again picks up the same message (as it has not be deleted from the queue) and tries to perform the operation again (up to a max number of retries)
To scale I could use two methods:
Multiple workers each with a separate queue. So if I have five workers W1 to W5, I have 5 queues Q1 to Q5 and each worker knows which queue to read from and failure handling is similar as the case with one queue and one worker
One queue and multiple workers. Here failure/Retry handling here would be more involved and might end up using the 'Invisibility' time in the message queue to make sure no two workers pick up the same job. The invisibility time would have to be calculated to make sure that its enough for the job to complete and yet not be large enough that retries are performed after a long time.
Would like to know if the 1st approach is the correct way to go? What are robust ways of handling failures in the second approach above?
You would be better off taking approach 2 - a single queue, but with multiple workers.
This is better because:
The process that delivers messages to the queue only needs to know about a single queue endpoint. This reduces complexity at this end;
Scaling the number of workers that are pulling from the queue is now decoupled from any code / configuration changes - you can scale up and down much more easily (and at runtime)
If you are worried about the visibility, you can initially choose a default timespan, and then if the worker looks like it's taking too long, it can periodically call UpdateMessage() to update the visibility of the message.
Finally, if your worker timesout and failed to complete processing of the message, it'll be picked up again by some other worker to try again. You can also use the DequeueCount property of the message to manage number of retries.
Multiple workers each with a separate queue. So if I have five workers
W1 to W5, I have 5 queues Q1 to Q5 and each worker knows which queue
to read from and failure handling is similar as the case with one
queue and one worker
With this approach I see following issues:
This approach makes your architecture tightly coupled (thus beating the whole purpose of using queues). Because each worker role listens to a dedicated queue, the web application responsible for pushing messages in the queue always need to know how many workers are running. Anytime you scale up or down your worker role, some how you need to tell web application so that it can start pushing messages in appropriate queue.
If a worker role instance is taken down for whatever reason there's a possibility that some messages may not be processed ever as other worker role instances are working on their dedicated queues.
There may be a possibility of under utilization/over utilization of worker role instances depending on how web application pushes the messages in the queue. For optimal utilization, web application should know about the worker role utilization so that it can decide which queue to send message to. This is certainly not a desired thing for a web application to do.
I believe #2 is the correct way to go. #Brendan Green has covered your concerns about #2 in his answer excellently.
I have a queue in Azure storage named for example 'messages'. And every 1 hour some service push to this queue some amount of messages that should update data. But, in some cases I also push to this queue message from another place and I want this message be proceeded immediately and I can not set priority for this message.
What is the best solution for this problem?
Can I use two different queues ('messages' and 'messages-priority') or it is a bad approach?
The correct approach is to use multiple queues - a 'normal priority' and a 'high priority' queue. What we have implemented is multiple queue reader threads in a single worker role - each thread first checks the high priority queue and, if its empty, looks in the normal queue. This way the high priority messages will be processed by the first available thread (pretty much immediately), and the same code runs regardless of where messages come from. It also saves having to have a reader continuously looking in a single queue and having to be backed off because there are seldom messages.
This question already has answers here:
Writing a listner to Azure Queue
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I am developing a website to be deployed in Azure. Right now I am using an Azure Queue to send emails to users. I am checking the Queue for received messages after each 60 seconds by sleeping the current Thread.
My problem is I do not want to wait the Thread and wait for 60 seconds, instead I want to trigger the message sending functionality when the Queue actually receives a message. I found the mechanism of Service Bus Topics/Subscriptions but I want to know whether I can implement the same Subscription mechanism with Azure Queues (without using Topics/Subscriptions). Is this possible? Can an Azure Queue listen to something so it can run only when a message is received to the Queue. I certainly don't want to sleep the Thread.
Thank you.
The question of Azure Queues supporting long-polling has been asked before - which is why I marked this as a duplicate.
Regarding thread-sleep: Not sure why you certainly don't want to sleep a thread to listen on a queue. It can be a separate thread, meaning you're not tying up other processes. And... as long as there are messages on the queue, you don't need to sleep between calls to GetMessage() - just keep reading until the queue is empty.
Also: Why wait 60 seconds? Start with 1 second, maybe exponential backoff to, say, 16 seconds, then stay there? Barely costs anything to check every few seconds (a penny per 100K transactions). This is a very common pattern, even with multiple role instances running.