I'm attempting to utilize the .NET Kaazing client in order to interact with a JMS back-end via web sockets. I'm struggling to understand the correct usage of sessions. Initially, I had a single session shared across all threads, but I noticed that this was not supported:
A Session object is a single-threaded context for producing and consuming messages. Although it may allocate provider resources outside the Java virtual machine (JVM), it is considered a lightweight JMS object.
The reason I had a single session was just because I thought that would yield better performance. Since the documentation claimed sessions were lightweight, I had no hesitation switching my code over to use a session per "operation". By "operation" I mean either sending a single message, or subscribing to a queue/topic. In the former case, the session is short-lived and closed immediately after the message is sent. In the latter case, the session needs to live as long as the subscription is active.
When I tried creating multiple sessions I got an error:
System.NotSupportedException: Only one non-transacted session can be active at a time
Googling this error was fruitless, so I tried switching over to transacted sessions. But when attempting to create a consumer I get a different error:
System.NotSupportedException: This operation is not supported in transacted sessions
So it seems I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place. The only possible options I see are to share my session across threads or to have a single, non-transacted session used to create consumers, and multiple transacted sessions for everything else. Both these approaches seem a little against the grain to me.
Can anyone shed some light on the correct way for me to handle sessions in my client?
There are several ways to add concurrency to your application. You could use multiple Connections, but that is probably not desirable due to an increase in network overhead. Better would be to implement a simple mechanism for handling the concurrency in the Message Listener by dispatching Tasks or by delivering messages via ConcurrentQueues. Here are some choices for implementation strategy:
The Task based approach would use a TaskScheduler. In the MessageListener, a task would be scheduled to handle the work and return immediately. You might schedule a new Task per message, for instance. At this point, the MessageListener would return and the next message would be immediately available. This approach would be fine for low throughput applications - e.g. a few messages per second - but where you need concurrency perhaps because some messages may take a long time to process.
Another approach would be to use a data structure of messages for work pending (ConcurrentQueue). When the MessageListener is invoked, each Message would be added to the ConcurrentQueue and return immediately. Then a separate set of threads/tasks can pull the messages from that ConcurrectQueue using an appropriate strategy for your application. This would work for a higher performance application.
A variation of this approach would be to have a ConcurrentQueue for each Thread processing inbound messages. Here the MessageListener would not manage its own ConcurrentQueue, but instead it would deliver the messages to the ConcurrentQueue associated with each thread. For instance, if you have inbound messages representing stock feeds and also news feeds, one thread (or set of threads) could process the stock feed messages, and another could process inbound news items separately.
Note that if you are using JMS Queues, each message will be acknowledged implicitly when your MessageListener returns. This may or may not be the behavior you want for your application.
For higher performance applications, you should consider approaches 2 and 3.
Related
I'm trying to understand how to deal with threads within a Java client that connects to HornetQ. I'm not getting a specific error but fail to understand how I'm expected to deal with threads in the first place (with respect to the HornetQ client and specifically MessageHandler.onMessage() -- threads in general are no problem to me).
In case this is relevant: I'm using 'org.hornetq:hornetq-server:2.4.7.Final' to run the server embedded into my application. I don't intend this to make a difference. In my situation, that's just more convenient from an ops perspective than running a standalone server process.
What I did so far:
create an embedded server: new EmbeddedHornetQ(),
.setConfiguration()
create a server locator: HornetQClient.createServerLocator(false, new TransportConfiguration(InVMConnectorFactory.class.getName()))
create a session factory: serverLocator.createSessionFactory()
Now it seems obvious to me that I can create a session using hornetqClientSessionFactory.createSession(), create a producer and consumer for that session, and deal with messages within a single thread using .send() and .receive().
But I also discovered consumer.setMessageHandler(), and this tells me that I didn't understand threading in the client at all. I tried to use it, but then the consumer calls messageHandler.onMessage() in two threads that are distinct from the one that created the session. This seems to match my impression from looking at the code -- the HornetQ client uses a thread pool to dispatch messages.
This leaves me confused. The javadocs say that the session is a "single-thread object", and the code agrees -- no obvious synchronization going on there. But with onMessage() being called in multiple threads, message.acknowledge() is also called in multiple threads, and that one just delegates to the session.
How is this supposed to work? How would a scenario look in which MessageHandler does NOT access the session from multiple threads?
Going further, how would I send follow-up messages from within onMessage()? I'm using HornetQ for a persistent "to-do" work queue, so sending follow-up messages is a typical use case for me. But again, within onMessage(), I'm in the wrong thread for accessing the session.
Note that I would be okay with staying away from MessageHandler and just using send() / receive() in a way that allows me to control threading. But I'm convinced that I don't understand the whole situation at all, and that combined with multi-threading is just asking for trouble.
I can answer part of your question, although I hope you've already fixed the issue by now.
Form the HornetQ documentation on ClientConsumer (Emphasis mine):
A ClientConsumer receives messages from HornetQ queues.
Messages can be consumed synchronously by using the receive() methods which will block until a message is received (or a timeout expires) or asynchronously by setting a MessageHandler.
These 2 types of consumption are exclusive: a ClientConsumer with a MessageHandler set will throw HornetQException if its receive() methods are called.
So you have two choices on handling message reception:
Synchronize the reception yourself
Do not provide a MessageListener to HornetQ
In your own cunsumer Thread, invoke .receive() or .receive(long itmeout) at your leisure
Retrieve the (optional) ClientMessage object returned by the call
Pro: Using the Session you hopefully carry in the Consumer you can forward the message as you see fit
Con: All this message handling will be sequential
Delegate Thread synchronization to HornetQ
Do not invoke .receive() on a Consumer
Provide a MessageListener implementation of onMessage(ClientMessage)
Pro: All the message handling will be concurrent and fast, hassle-free
Con: I do not think it possible to retrieve the Session from this object, as it is not exposed by the interface.
Untested workaround: In my application (which is in-vm like yours), I exposed the underlying, thread-safe QueueConnection as a static variable available application-wide. From your MessageListener, you may invoke QueueSession jmsSession = jmsConnection.createQueueSession(false, Session.AUTO_ACKNOWLEDGE); on it to obtain a new Session and send your messages from it... This is probably alright as far as I can see because the Session object is not really re-created. I also did this because Sessions had a tendency to become stale.
I don't think you should want so much to be in control of your Message execution threads, especially transient Threads that merely forward messages. HornetQ has built-in Thread pools as you guessed, and reuses these objects efficiently.
Also as you know you don't need to be in a single Thread to access an object (like a Queue) so it doesn't matter if the Queue is accessed through multiple Threads, or even through multiple Sessions. You need only make sure a Session is only accesed by one Thread, and this is by design with MessageListener.
My application being as ibm client to consume the message which sent by ibm MQ server. But sometimes they will sent big number of messages(e.g:50000). But our client application can not "eat" the message so quickly.
what i'v been tried:
Use caching connection factory, But not help too much.
org.springframework.jms.connection.CachingConnectionFactory
I can't open multiple threads for the listener to speed up the consuming speed(Currently is set to 1) because of our business requirement.
Thanks in advanced!
Edit:
For each message processing time is like: (e.g:0:00:00.079) But wait to start process next message will take long time (e.g:0:00:00.534)
Consider the transactional and persistence requirements of the messages.
There are a number of options within MQ that could be enabled here to speed up delivery.
MQ is optimized for either persistent/transactional or non-persistent/non-transactional workloads. Don't mix them, so for example sending persistent messages in a non-transactional session.
If you are using non-persistent/non-transactional messaging then look into the READ_AHEAD options to stream messages down to the client.
In additional ensure that selectors are not in use.
If the client implementation is negotiable, look at sending aggregate messages that combine individual messages, especially if the business logic can adapt to handle them together before (for example) saving something to a database.
The only legitimate "business" reason that you can't have multiple listener threads is because of event/workflow ordering and the chance of processing two related messages concurrently rather than sequentially. However, perhaps it's possible to redesign the client so that messages are segregated by the sender, using JMS properties of some sort, and then have each listener filter by various properties. As long as all related events/messages get the same property, you might be able to have multiple listeners.
Not ideal, but if you made the listener stateful so that you knew when to rollback event B because related event A is currently getting processed, that might work. Difficult to do well with more overhead processing. Better yet, figure out a way to process messages out-of-order and yet get the correct answer in the end.
Ultimately, for large number of messages, you really need to figure out how to get n listeners because otherwise you might never catch up and, worse case, continue to grow your backlog.
There is one controlling entity and several 'worker' entities. The controlling entity requests certain data from the worker entities, which they will fetch and return in their own manner.
Since the controlling entity can agnostic about the worker entities (and the working entities can be added/removed at any point), putting a JMS provider in between them sounds like a good idea. That's the assumption at least.
Since it is an one-to-many relation (controller -> workers), a JMS Topic would be the right solution. But, since the controlling entity is depending on the return values of the workers, request/reply functionality would be nice as well (somewhere, I read about the TopicRequester but I cannot seem to find a working example). Request/reply is typical Queue functionality.
As an attempt to use topics in a request/reply sort-of-way, I created two JMS topis: request and response. The controller publishes to the request topic and is subscribed to the response topic. Every worker is subscribed to the request topic and publishes to the response topic. To match requests and responses the controller will subscribe for each request to the response topic with a filter (using a session id as the value). The messages workers publish to the response topic have the session id associated with them.
Now this does not feel like a solution (rather it uses JMS as a hammer and treats the problem (and some more) as a nail). Is JMS in this situation a solution at all? Or are there other solutions I'm overlooking?
Your approach sort of makes sense to me. I think a messaging system could work. I think using topics are wrong. Take a look at the wiki page for Enterprise Service Bus. It's a little more complicated than you need, but the basic idea for your use case, is that you have a worker that is capable of reading from one queue, doing some processing and adding the processed data back to another queue.
The problem with a topic is that all workers will get the message at the same time and they will all work on it independently. It sounds like you only want one worker at a time working on each request. I think you have it as a topic so different types of workers can also listen to the same queue and only respond to certain requests. For that, you are better off just creating a new queue for each type of work. You could potentially have them in pairs, so you have a work_a_request queue and work_a_response queue. Or if your controller is capable of figuring out the type of response from the data, they can all write to a single response queue.
If you haven't chosen an Message Queue vendor yet, I would recommend RabbitMQ as it's easy to set-up, easy to add new queues (especially dynamically) and has really good spring support (although most major messaging systems have spring support and you may not even be using spring).
I'm also not sure what you are accomplishing the filters. If you ensure the messages to the workers contain all the information needed to do the work and the response messages back contain all the information your controller needs to finish the processing, I don't think you need them.
I would simply use two JMS queues.
The first one is the one that all of the requests go on. The workers will listen to the queue, and process them in their own time, in their own way.
Once complete, they will put bundle the request with the response and put that on another queue for the final process to handle. This way there's no need for the the submitting process to retain the requests, they just follow along with the entire procedure. A final process will listen to the second queue, and handle the request/response pairs appropriately.
If there's no need for the message to be reliable, or if there's no need for the actual processes to span JVMs or machines, then this can all be done with a single process and standard java threading (such as BlockingQueues and ExecutorServices).
If there's a need to accumulate related responses, then you'll need to capture whatever grouping data is necessary and have the Queue 2 listening process accumulate results. Or you can persist the results in a database.
For example, if you know your working set has five elements, you can queue up the requests with that information (1 of 5, 2 of 5, etc.). As each one finishes, the final process can update the database, counting elements. When it sees all of the pieces have been completed (in any order), it marks the result as complete. Later you would have some audit process scan for incomplete jobs that have not finished within some time (perhaps one of the messages erred out), so you can handle them better. Or the original processors can write the request to a separate "this one went bad" queue for mitigation and resubmission.
If you use JMS with transaction, if one of the processors fails, the transaction will roll back and the message will be retained on the queue for processing by one of the surviving processors, so that's another advantage of JMS.
The trick with this kind of processing is to try and push the state with message, or externalize it and send references to the state, thus making each component effectively stateless. This aids scaling and reliability since any component can fail (besides catastrophic JMS failure, naturally), and just pick up where you left off when you get the problem resolved an get them restarted.
If you're in a request/response mode (such as a servlet needing to respond), you can use Servlet 3.0 Async servlets to easily put things on hold, or you can put a local object on a internal map, keyed with the something such as the Session ID, then you Object.wait() in that key. Then, your Queue 2 listener will get the response, finalize the processing, and then use the Session ID (sent with message and retained through out the pipeline) to look up
the object that you're waiting on, then it can simply Object.notify() it to tell the servlet to continue.
Yes, this sticks a thread in the servlet container while waiting, that's why the new async stuff is better, but you work with the hand you're dealt. You can also add a timeout to the Object.wait(), if it times out, the processing took to long so you can gracefully alert the client.
This basically frees you from filters and such, and reply queues, etc. It's pretty simple to set it all up.
Well actual answer should depend upon whether your worker entities are external parties, physical located outside network, time expected for worker entity to finish their work etc..but problem you are trying to solve is one-to-many communication...u added jms protocol in your system just because you want all entities to be able to talk in jms protocol or asynchronous is reason...former reason does not make sense...if it is latter reason, you can choose other communication protocol like one-way web service call.
You can use latest java concurrent APIs to create multi-threaded asynchronous one-way web service call to different worker entities...
I'm working on the existing application that uses transport layer with point-to-point MQ communication.
For each of the given list of accounts we need to retrieve some information.
Currently we have something like this to communicate with MQ:
responseObject getInfo(requestObject){
code to send message to MQ
code to retrieve message from MQ
}
As you can see we wait until it finishes completely before proceeding to the next account.
Due to performance issues we need to rework it.
There are 2 possible scenarios that I can think off at the moment.
1) Within an application to create a bunch of threads that would execute transport adapter for each account. Then get data from each task. I prefer this method, but some of the team members argue that transport layer is a better place for such change and we should place extra load on MQ instead of our application.
2) Rework transport layer to use publish/subscribe model.
Ideally I want something like this:
void send (requestObject){
code to send message to MQ
}
responseObject receive()
{
code to retrieve message from MQ
}
Then I will just send requests in the loop, and later retrieve data in the loop. The idea is that while first request is being processed by the back end system we don't have to wait for the response, but instead send next request.
My question, is it going to be a lot faster than current sequential retrieval?
The question title frames this as a choice between P2P and pub/sub but the question body frames it as a choice between threaded and pipelined processing. These are two completely different things.
Either code snippet provided could just as easily use P2P or pub/sub to put and get messages. The decision should not be based on speed but rather whether the interface in question requires a single message to be delivered to multiple receivers. If the answer is no then you probably want to stick with point-to-point, regardless of your application's threading model.
And, incidentally, the answer to the question posed in the title is "no." When you use the point-to-point model your messages resolve immediately to a destination or transmit queue and WebSphere MQ routes them from there. With pub/sub your message is handed off to an internal broker process that resolves zero to many possible destinations. Only after this step does the published message get put on a queue where, for the remainder of it's journey, it then is handled like any other point-to-point message. Although pub/sub is not normally noticeably slower than point-to-point the code path is longer and therefore, all other things being equal, it will add a bit more latency.
The other part of the question is about parallelism. You proposed either spinning up many threads or breaking the app up so that requests and replies are handled separately. A third option is to have multiple application instances running. You can combine any or all of these in your design. For example, you can spin up multiple request threads and multiple reply threads and then have application instances processing against multiple queue managers.
The key to this question is whether the messages have affinity to each other, to order dependencies or to the application instance or thread which created them. For example, if I am responding to an HTTP request with a request/reply then the thread attached to the HTTP session probably needs to be the one to receive the reply. But if the reply is truly asynchronous and all I need to do is update a database with the response data then having separate request and reply threads is helpful.
In either case, the ability to dynamically spin up or down the number of instances is helpful in managing peak workloads. If this is accomplished with threading alone then your performance scalability is bound to the upper limit of a single server. If this is accomplished by spinning up new application instances on the same or different server/QMgr then you get both scalability and workload balancing.
Please see the following article for more thoughts on these subjects: Mission:Messaging: Migration, failover, and scaling in a WebSphere MQ cluster
Also, go to the WebSphere MQ SupportPacs page and look for the Performance SupportPac for your platform and WMQ version. These are the ones with names beginning with MP**. These will show you the performance characteristics as the number of connected application instances varies.
It doesn't sound like you're thinking about this the right way. Regardless of the model you use (point-to-point or publish/subscribe), if your performance is bounded by a slow back-end system, neither will help speed up the process. If, however, you could theoretically issue more than one request at a time against the back-end system and expect to see a speed up, then you still don't really care if you do point-to-point or publish/subscribe. What you really care about is synchronous vs. asynchronous.
Your current approach for retrieving the data is clearly synchronous: you send the request message, and wait for the corresponding response message. You could do your communication asynchronously if you simply sent all the request messages in a row (perhaps in a loop) in one method, and then had a separate method (preferably on a different thread) monitoring the incoming topic for responses. This would ensure that your code would no longer block on individual requests. (This roughly corresponds to option 2, though without pub/sub.)
I think option 1 could get pretty unwieldly, depending on how many requests you actually have to make, though it, too, could be implemented without switching to a pub/sub channel.
The reworked approach will use fewer threads. Whether that makes the application faster depends on whether the overhead of managing a lot of threads is currently slowing you down. If you have fewer than 1000 threads (this is a very, very rough order-of-magnitude estimate!), i would guess it probably isn't. If you have more than that, it might well be.
From the javadoc for Session it states:
A Session object is a single-threaded context for producing and consuming messages.
So I understand that you shouldn't use a Session object from two different threads at the same time. What I'm unclear on is if you could use the Session object (or children such as a Queue) from a different thread than the one it created.
In the case I'm working on, I'm considering putting my Session objects into a pool of available sessions that any thread could borrow from, use, and return to the pool when it is finished with it.
Is this kosher?
(Using ActiveMQ BTW, if that impacts the answer at all.)
I think the footnote from section 4.4 in the JMS 1.1 spec sheds some light:
There are no restrictions on the number of threads that can use a Session object or those it creates. The restriction is that the resources of a Session should not be used concurrently by multiple threads. It is up to the user to insure that this concurrency restriction is met. The simplest way to do this is to use one thread. In the case of asynchronous delivery, use one thread for setup in stopped mode and then start asynchronous delivery. In more complex cases the user must provide explicit synchronization.
By my reading of the spec what you want to do is OK, provided you correctly manage concurrency.
Sadly the JMS docs are often not written as clearly or precisely as we might like :o(
But reading the spec I'm now pretty convinced you really shouldn't access the session from other threads, even if you guarantee there's no concurrent access. The bit of the javadoc that swung it for me was:
Once a connection has been started,
any session with a registered message
listener(s) is dedicated to the thread
of control that delivers messages to
it. It is erroneous for client code to
use this session or any of its
constituent objects from another
thread of control. The only exception
to this is the use of the session or
connection close method.
Note the clear use of 'thread of control' and the singling out of 'close()' as the only exception.
They seem to be saying that even if you're using asynchronous message consumption (i.e. setMessageListener) - which means you get called back on another thread created by JMS to receive messages - you're never allowed to touch the session or related objects again from any other thread, because the session is now 'dedicated' to the JMS delivery thread. For example, I assume this means you couldn't even call message.acknowledge() from another thread.
Having said that, I only just noticed that we haven't been obeying this constraint, and have yet to notice any ill effects (using SonicMQ). But of course if you don't obey the standard, all bets are off, so I guess we need to obey the 1-thread 1-session rule to stay safe.