Kafka - producer - handle "failed to send" - java

I'm running a 0.8 Kafka, and build a producer using the provided Java API.
The API functions of sending a message (or messages) return void.
Is there a way to get the status of the sent message? If it sent or failed?
This is extremely important to us since we are reading the messages from a file and we want to delete the file after all messages were sent. But if there were errors and some messages weren't sent and I delete the file it will cause a loss of a very important data.

You can configure your producer to wait until it gets n acks from the Kafka cluster (request.required.acks) so that you have some kind of guarantee that the data has been committed properly before deleting your source file.
If really you need to be sure that the message sent succeeded, you might want to consider the alternative of making the producer to be synchronous (producer.type=sync). This way, you would be able to catch any exception thrown by the blocking invocation and act accordingly. The exception thrown by send() is kafka.common.FailedToSendMessageException.
Kafka's Java API is not ideal, hope this helps you.

Related

How to handle exceptions with spring-jms

Hi I am using a jmslistener annotation to recieve messages from tibco queue. I am DefaultJmsListenerContainer factory with sessionTransacted = true. What I want to do is
When we get a RunTimeException I want to retry the specific message specific no of times(lets say x)
When we get cannot get jdbc connection I want to shutdown the system and want to make sure that this message is sent back to the queue to be redelivered the next time system is brought up.
What I am facing is
When I am setting sessionTransacted as true and I am throwing a RunTimeException the message is redelivered indefinitely . How can I set this configuration to redeliver the message only x times.( I have tried using message header property JMSXDeliveryCount but that does not give me the correct no of times a specific message is redelivered.)
I tried shutting down the system using System.exit(1) but this leads to deadlock and application hangs. I added another piece of code where I am shutting down the application in a different thread and making sure if in between the shutting down of the container another message is read by the listener I throw a RunTimeException so that I am able to get that message again once my system is brought up. However what I want is the 1st message for which we did not get the jdbc connection to be redelivered and no other messages to be read when I stop the container.How can we achieve this.

How to save message into database and send response into topic eventually consistent?

I have the following rabbitMq consumer:
Consumer consumer = new DefaultConsumer(channel) {
#Override
public void handleDelivery(String consumerTag, Envelope envelope, MQP.BasicProperties properties, byte[] body) throws IOException {
String message = new String(body, "UTF-8");
sendNotificationIntoTopic(message);
saveIntoDatabase(message);
}
};
Following situation can occur:
Message was send into topic successfully
Connection to database was lost so database insert was failed.
As a result we have data inconsistency.
Expected result either both action were successfully executed or both were not executed at all.
Any solutions how can I achieve it?
P.S.
Currently I have following idea(please comment upon)
We can suppose that broker doesn't lose any messages.
We have to be subscribed on topic we want to send.
Save entry into database and set field status with value 'pending'
Attempt to send data to topic. If send was successfull - update field status with value 'success'
We have to have a sheduled job which have to check rows with pending status. At the moment 2 cases are possible:
3.1 Notification wasn't send at all
3.2 Notification was send but save into database was failed(probability is very low but it is possible)
So we have to distinquish that 2 cases somehow: we may store messages from topic in the collection and job can check if the message was accepted or not. So if job found a message which corresponds the database row we have to update status to "success". Otherwise we have to remove entry from database.
I think my idea has some weaknesses(for example if we have multinode application we have to store messages in hazelcast(or analogs) but it is additional point of hypothetical failure)
Here is an example of Try Cancel Confirm pattern https://servicecomb.apache.org/docs/distributed_saga_3/ that should be capable of dealing with your problem. You should tolerate some chance of double submission of the data via the queue. Here is an example:
Define abstraction Operation and Assign ID to the operation plus a timestamp.
Write status Pending to the database (you can do this in the same step as 1)
Write a listener that polls the database for all operations with status pending and older than "timeout"
For each pending operation send the data via the queue with the assigned ID.
The recipient side should be aware of the ID and if the ID has been processed nothing should happen.
6A. If you need to be 100% that the operation has completed you need a second queue where the recipient side will post a message ID - DONE. If such consistency is not necessary skip this step. Alternatively it can post ID -Failed reason for failure.
6B. The submitting side either waits for a message from 6A of completes the operation by writing status DONE to the database.
Once a sertine timeout has passed or certain retry limit has passed. You write status to operation FAIL.
You can potentialy send a message to the recipient side opertaion with ID rollback.
Notice that all this steps do not involve a technical transactions. You can do this with a non transactional database.
What I have written is a variation of the Try Cancel Confirm Pattern where each recipient of message should be aware of how to manage its own data.
In the listener save database row with field staus='pending'
Another job(separated thread) will obtain all pending rows from DB and following for each row:
2.1 send data to topic
2.2 save into database
If we failured on the step 1 - everything is ok - data in consistent state because job won't know anything about that data
if we failured on the step 2.1 - no problem, next job invocation will attempt to handle it
if we failured on the step 2.2 - If we failured here - it means that next job invocation will handle the same data again. From the first glance you can think that it is a problem. But your consumer has to be idempotent - it means that it has to understand that message was already processed and skip the processing. This requirement is a consequence that all message brokers have guarantees that message will be delivered AT LEAST ONCE. So our consumers have to be ready for duplicated messages anyway. No problem again.
Here's the pseudocode for how i'd do it: (Assuming the dao layer has transactional capability and your messaging layer doesnt)
//Start a transaction
try {
String message = new String(body, "UTF-8");
// Ordering is important here as I'm assuming the database has commit and rollback capabilities, but the messaging system doesnt.
saveIntoDatabase(message);
sendNotificationIntoTopic(message);
} catch (MessageDeliveryException) {
// rollback the transaction
// Throw a domain specific exception
}
//commit the transaction
Scenarios:
1. If the database fails, the message wont be sent as the exception will break the code flow .
2. If the database call succeeds and the messaging system fails to deliver, catch the exception and rollback the database changes
All the actions necessary for logging and replaying the failures can be outside this method
If there is enough time to modify the design, it is recommended to use JTA like APIs to manage 2phase commit. Even weblogic and WebSphere support XA resource for 2 phase commit.
If timeline is less, it is suggested perform as below to reduce the failure gap.
Send data topic (no commit) (incase topic is down, retry to be performed with an interval)
Write data into DB
Commit DB
Commit Topic
Here failure will happen only when step 4 fails. It will result in same message send again. So receiving system will receive duplicate message. Each message has unique messageID and CorrelationID in JMS2.0 structure. So finding duplicate is bit straight forward (but this is to be handled at receiving system)
Both case will work for clustered environment as well.
Strict to your case, thought below steps might help to overcome your issue
Subscribe a listener listener-1 to your topic.
Process-1
Add DB entry with status 'to be sent' for message msg-1
Send message msg-1 to topic. Retry sending incase of any topic failure
If step 2 failed after certain retry, process-1 has to resend the msg-1 before sending any new messages OR step-1 to be rolled back
Listener-1
Using subscribed listener, read reference(meesageID/correlationID) from Topic, and update DB status to SENT, and read/remove message from topic. Incase reference-read success and DB update failed, topic still have message. So next read will update DB. Incase DB update success and message removal failed. Listener will read again and tries to update message which is already done. So can be ignored after validation.
Incase listener itself down, topic will have messages until listener reading the messages. Until then SENT messages will be in status 'to be sent'.

Paho-Mqtt Publish from callback messageArrived()

I have an application using MQTT implemented with the paho-mqtt-1.0.2 and I am using ActiveMQ as the broker. I have a class implementing the MqttCallback, what I am wondering is why does the client hang
#Override
messageArrived(...)
do work
mqtt.publish(TOPIC,PAYLOAD,2,false) <- here
I want to send a "response" message to the broker for the next step of the work to be done. Similar to this, I read in the docs for that callback function
It is possible to send a new message within an implementation of this callback (for example, a response to this message), but the implementation must not disconnect the client, as it will be impossible to send an acknowledgment for the message being processed, and a deadlock will occur.
Has anyone out there tried doing the above and get it to work?
I also tried using the MqttAsyncClient and that ended up with
"Error too many publishes in progress" leading to undelivered messages.
I know how to get around this issue, I'm not looking for workaround; I'm looking for receiving and publishing on the thread where messageArrived() gets executed.
Happy Hunting!

In Apache Camel, how can I receive an error if an endpoint doesn't exist?

We are using Camel fluent builders to set up a series of complex routes, in which we are using dynamic routing using the RecipientList functionality.
We've encountered issues where in some cases, the recipient list contains a messaging endpoint that doesn't exist (for example, something like seda:notThere).
A simple example is something like this:
from("seda:SomeSource")....to("seda:notThere");
How can I configure the route so that if the exchange tries to route to an endpoint that doesn't already exist, an error is thrown?
I'm using Camel 2.9.x, and I've already experimented with the Dead Letter Channel and various Error Handler implementations, with (seemingly) no errors or warnings logged.
The only logging I see indicates that Camel is (attempting to) send to the endpoint which doesn't exist:
2013-07-03 16:07:08,030|main|DEBUG|o.a.c.p.SendProcessor|>>>> Endpoint[seda://notThere] Exchange[Message: x.y.Z#293b9fae]
Thanks in advance!
All endpoints behave differently in this case.
If you attempt to write to a ftp server that does not exist, you certainly get an error (connection refused or otherwise)..
This is also true for a number of endpoints.
SEDA queues gets created if the do not exist and the message will be left there. So your route actually sends to "notThere" and the message will still be there until the application restarts or someone starts to consume messages from seda:notThere. This is the way seda queues are designed. If you set the size of the seda queue by to("seda:notThere?size=100"), then if there is noone reading (or reading slowly) you will get exceptions on message 101 and forward.
If you need to be sure some route is consuming your messages, use "direct" instead of "seda". You can even have some middle layer to use the features of seda with respect to staging and the features of direct knowing there is a consumer active (if sent from recipient list with perhaps user input (god forbid).
from("whatever").recipentList( ... ); // "direct:ep1" work, "direct:ep2" throws exception
from("direct:ep1").to("seda:ep1");
from("seda:ep1").doRealStagedStuffHere();

JMS Listener & Sender - Spring Framework

I want to understand a java program and need to modify which was developed using jms spring framework. Typically it has JMS receiver & sender, it receives a message from request queue and will invoke a job (another java program) once the job is completed the sender will send response to response queue. Have couple of questions which are below,
The request message is not deleted until response posted into response queue successfully. How its been achieved what is the logic behind it.
I want to write a functionality of writing response into flat file when sender fails to send message (by catching JMS exception). Once the sender queue is up and running i will read flat file and will send responses. The reason i need is because its involved in job processing could be in hours if job failed then input message will be read again by receiver. I want to avoid duplicate processing. Please suggest your ideas here.
Without seeing the configuration it's hard to answer these questions, but best guess is that #1 is because the app is using a transactional session. This means all updates on that session are not completed until the transaction is committed.
Just catch the exception and write the data; as long as the transaction commits (because you caught the exception) the input message will be removed.

Categories

Resources