[rabbitmq-discuss] request for help!

[Colin Clark]

In regards to the once-and-only-once discussion below:

In many financial formats, like FIX and others, we utilize message ID's 
that help with this behavior a lot.  It also prevents from messages 
being delivered out of sequence.  For example.

Client logs in - server and client at message ID of 0,
every message that the server sends has an incremented ID,
if the client receives an unexpected ID, it can either request a 
retransmit from the last known or kill the session,
when a client logs back in, the client logs in with the expected ID, 
server & client negotiate and session resumes.
(there are id's for both the client & server messages, both incremented 
for each message and the above behavior applies on both sides of the 
connection)

FIX employs an optimistic delivery protocol, i.e., assume that it was 
received.  There is no session level ack.  Only an ack at the 
application level; and that ack is not mandatory.  Use of the message ID 
provides the once & only once and in order semantics required for 
trading; a behavior that is obviously very useful elsewhere as well.

Using sequence #'s also allows for advanced concepts such as flow 
control - I haven't read enough of the spec yet to see if that's a 
feature yet or not.

I do agree, if a message is sent, then an ack is waited for, sending an 
ack of ack seems a little over kill to me.  Perhaps it's time for me to 
read the whole spec again.

On 5/10/2010 8:37 AM, Tim Fox wrote:
> I've spent this morning going through the 1.0. PR3 spec, firstly, it's
> considerably simpler than 0.10, which is great news :)
>
> Here's my 2p:
>
> One thing I find quite strange is that the core spec doesn't actually
> seem to mandate any queueing semantics anywhere. I've nothing
> particularly against that - in fact, the idea that a node can do
> different types of ordering is actually quite nice, however it's not a
> queueing protocol. Shouldn't AMQP therefore be renamed to AMTP (Advanced
> Message Transfer Protocol) ? ;)
>
> On a more serious note, my main concerns are mainly around complexity,
> and verbosity of the wire format. The latter I suppose is not completely
> independent from the former.
>
> Regarding complexity. IMO a large part of the complexity in the spec.
> seems to come from the way it tries to provide a once and only once
> delivery guarantee. AIUI the way the spec. implements this guarantee is
> something like the following when transferring a message from A to B:
>
> a) message to be sent from A-->B
> b) ack sent back from B-->A
> c) "ack of ack" sent from A-->B - now the delivery tag can be removed
> from the senders cache
>
> This results in a complex set of message states, and puts the burden on
> both sides of the link to maintain a map of delivery tags, which would
> also have to be persisted in order to provide once and only delivery
> guarantee in event of failures of node(s). This will also require
> several syncs to storage at each transition (for durable messaging).
> I.e. slow
>
> Perhaps a simpler way of getting the once and only guarantee is to
> forget the delivery tag altogether and allow the sender to specify a
> de-duplication-id - this is just a user generated id - e.g. a String or
> a byte[], (can be generated from user application domain concepts - e.g.
> order number).
>
> When sending a message this id can be specified on the transfer. The
> receiving end can then maintain a de-duplication cache. The
> de-duplication cache can be implemented as a circular buffer which just
> overwrites itself when full (this is what we do in HornetQ for reliable
> bridging between nodes), this means the interaction c) is not necessary
> or can just be sent intermittently to allow the cache to be cleared. The
> de-dup cache still requires syncing to non volatile storage to give the
> once and only once (for durable messages), however it requires less
> writes than the method described in the spec, and it it has one less
> interaction (you can get rid of the "ack of ack")
>
> On recovery after system failure, the sender just blindly sends the
> messages again, on receipt at the server any messages seen before will
> just be rejected. No need for reattaching, sending maps of unsettled
> transfers or other complex stuff like that.
>
> By removing all this delivery tag book-keeping and session re-attachment
> stuff, which seems unnecessary to me, would result in a dramatic
> simplification.
>
> Regarding verbosity of the wire format for message transfer; if you're
> just passing a 12 byte message (e.g. stock price - 4 byte identifier + 8
> byte price) then the overall encoded size is much higher than 12 bytes.
>
> This will kill performance for small messages, making any AMQP compliant
> implementation unable to compete in the world of lightweight
> publish/subscribe messaging with other, non AMQP implementations which
> don't have to conform to the AMQP wire format and can produce much more
> lightweight encodings. The key to perf with lightweight pub/sub is to
> make the encoded message size as small as possible and cram as many
> messages as you can into single socket writes.
>
> Now, lightweight pub/sub may not be the target domain for AMQP, in which
> case it does not need to worry about it, however if a particular
> messaging system supports multiple protocols including AMQP, it will not
> do much for the adoption of AMQP if the best performance is not
> achievable using the AMQP protocol - users will fall back to using the
> proprietary protocol offered by the vendor.
>
> A short comment on transactions. I have to be honest here, I spent about
> 30 mins reading the chapter on transactions several times. I have to say
> at the end of it I am not much further understanding it. :(
>
> However maybe that is moot - a part of me is thinking that transactions
> don't really belong in the core spec. Perhaps the core spec should be
> concerned with allowing the reliable movement of messages between nodes.
> With that in place, transactions could be layered on top in another spec (?)
>
>
>
>
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rabbitmq.com/pipermail/rabbitmq-discuss/attachments/20100510/689406fc/attachment.htm