public final PullResponse pull(SubscriptionName subscription, boolean returnImmediately, int maxMessages)
According to the documentation:
#param returnImmediately If this field set to true, the system will respond immediately even if there are no messages available to return in the Pull response. Otherwise, the system may wait (for a bounded amount of time) until at least one message is available, rather than returning no messages.
The client may cancel the request if it does not wish to wait any longer for the response.
I have a Thread that calls pull, with the returnImmediately flag set to false.
If I interrupt() the thread there is a (roughly 60 second) delay before the pull request times out and I can check the interrupted flag status.
I don't see any way to pass an interrupt request to the call. Nor do I see a way to configure the "bounded amount of time". What am I missing?
It looks like you may be using a fairly old version of the alpha Google Cloud Pub/Sub client library. In versions ≥ 0.11.0 (including the latest version, 0.17.1), the inconsistency no longer exists as the API has been altered such that you no longer need to worry about returnImmediately.
Related
I think that have seen in many occasions that a DynamoDB conditional put throws ConditionalCheckFailedException but succeeds. Usually in this scenario, the request takes quite long (~10s) to finish, but I can see that the request is updated despite the fact that a ConditionalCheckFailedException is thrown (and the it took few seconds).
By the way I don't force any timeout on the DDB request.
Is this a bug, or some DDB conditional put contract that I misunderstand? Has anyone experienced this issue?
Answering this late to inform others:
ConditionCheckFailedException but item is persisted:
This typically happens when you save an item to DynamoDB, DynamoDB acknowledges the write request but the response gets lost on the return path which can happen for multiple reasons, keeping in mind that DynamoDB is one of the largest distributed systems in the cloud.
This causes the SDK timeout to exceed while awaiting a response, which then triggers an SDK retry. When the write request is retried, the condition now evaluates to False as the item already exists, which in turn throws a ConditionCheckFailedException, which can cause confusion.
When I receive a ConditionCheckFailedException I typically do a strongly consistent GetItem request for the item to ensure it exists with the values I expect and move on.
I'm attempting to use a pull queue to create a queue of image processing tasks that could take longer that the acktimeout limit of 10 minutes. I'm using node.js api and I'm wondering how I could have a worker grab a message off the pull queue, mark it as in progress so no other workers attempt to grab it, do its work and acknowledge the message after the processing is done. This processing could take up to an hour per worker. If an exception occurs, I'd like to remove the "in progress" status and allow other workers to pick up this message and attempt to work on it.
I was hoping there was something in pubsub that would allow me to do this. My alternative is to, before processing, store an entity (inProgressMessage) with the message id, ack id, status=pending, timestamp=now() into datastore, have the worker immediately return the ackid after receiving the message (this will allow other workers to attempt other messages), then the worker can work on the lengthy task. If successful, mark the entity status as complete, if failed in a non permanent way, requeue the task into pubsub, if failed in a permanent way that won't allow reqeueing, I can have cron that checks datastore for pending tasks older than several hours and have them either be deleted or requeued.
My alternative feels like i'm re-implementing alot of what pub sub is supposed to help with.
Let me know if you can think of a better way.
To take longer than the ack deadline to process a message, you'll want to use modifyAckDeadline. You can extend the deadline as many times as you need up to 10 minutes per call. Your workflow would be as follows:
Pull the message.
Start to process the message.
While you are not done with the message, if you are close to the 10 minute ack deadline, call modifyAckDeadline to extend the deadline.
Once done processing the message, ack it.
Please note that calling modifyAckDeadline does not guarantee that the message won't be delivered to another task. In certain circumstances like server restarts, the message may end up being delivered to another of your subscribers. However, in most normal circumstances, as long as you call modifyAckDeadline before the current ack deadline, you can prevent a message's redelivered as long as necessary.
When creating a topic (only), you can configure the acknowledge time to be whatever up to 10 minutes (https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/subscriber). Once a message has been pulled from the queue, no other worker (of the same subscriber) will be able to take it for processing, unless the ack ttl was reached, and then the message is automatically returned to queue.
Since you need a longer period, you will have to implement something on your own, or seek another queuing solution. I think the design you suggested is fairly simple to implement, and is not really a re-implementation of what pubsub does.
I'm doing some operations that should complete under 60 seconds but there may be some rare cases where it takes longer (but will never take longer than 10 minutes). It says in the app engine docs if you catch a DeadlineExceededException you have less than a second to do operations before it permanently fails. Would this be enough time to add a task to a queue and/or do a datastore write? I assume the safest way would be to add a task async/write a datastore entity (async) at the beginning of an operation and remove it from the queue if the operation completes. The latter method would use up twice as many api calls but is it worth it?
I would suggest to use the queue as default for all operations so you won't have to implement the fallback to it if you catch a dead line exceed error. It is more clean and easier to maintain along with the fact that the user doesn't have to wait for the operation to complete. In order to achieve this you can trigger your queue with an ajax call and get the result in the background, so the user will not wait for the operation to complete. Yes it worth's it, since it can "guarantee" the window of time you might need.
The runtime environment gives the request handler a little bit more time (less than a second) after raising the exception to prepare a custom response. so it would be sufficient to add that it into task queue.
If you do not want the client to keep polling for a task queue result, I suggest you have a look at the Channel API. It will enable you to implement push notifications to the client.
At the end of your task queue, you'll just have to send a notification to the client to let him now that is task has been processed.
In Amazon Web Services, their queues allow you to post messages with a visibility delay up to 15 minutes. What if I don't want messages visible for 6 months?
I'm trying to come up with an elegant solution to the poll/push problem. I can write code to poll the SQS (or a database) every few seconds, check for messages that are ready to be visible, then move them to a "visible queue", or something like that. I wish there was a simpler, more reliable method to have messages become visible in queues far into the future without me having to worry about my polling application working perfectly all the time.
I'm not married to AWS, SQS or any of that, but I'd prefer to find a cloud-friendly solution that is stable, reliable and will trigger an event far into the future without me having to worry about checking on its status every day.
Any thoughts or alternate trees for me to explore barking up are welcome.
Thanks!
It sounds like you might be misunderstanding the visibility delay. Its purpose is to make sure that the polling application doesn't pull the same item off the queue more than once.
In other words, when the item is pulled off the queue it becomes invisible for a predetermined period of time (default is 30 seconds, max is 15 minutes) in case the polling system has a cluster of machines reading from the queue all at once.
Here's the relevant documentation:
http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/SQSDeveloperGuide/IntroductionArticle.html#AboutVT
...and the sentence in particular that relates to my comment is:
"Immediately after the component receives the message, the message is still in the queue. However, you don't want other components in the system receiving and processing the message again. Therefore, Amazon SQS blocks them with a visibility timeout, which is a period of time during which Amazon SQS prevents other consuming components from receiving and processing that message."
You should be able to use SQS for your purpose since you can leave an item in the queue for as long as you want.
7 years later, and Amazon still doesn't support the feature you need!
The two ways you can sort of get it to work are:
have messages contain a delivery target datetime in their message_attributes, and have the workers that consume the queue's messages just delete and recreate any message that is consumed before its target, with delay = max(0, min(secs_until_target_datetime, 900)) ; that would allow you to effectively schedule a message for any arbitrary future time;
or,
(slightly less frequent and costly:) similarly, if a message isn't due to be handled yet, recreate it and change its visibility timeout to be timeout = max(0, min(secs_until_target_datetime, 43200))
The disadvantage of using visibility timeout is that any read will re-trigger it.
There has been a direct AWS solution possible since 2016-12-01: AWS Step Functions
Each execution can last/idle up to one year, persists the state between transitions, and doesn't cost you any money while it waits.
Many of my handlers add a task to a task queue to do non-critical background processing. Since this processing isn't critical, if the call to taskqueue.add() throws an exception, my code just ignores it.
Tonight the task queue seemed to be down for around half an hour. Although my handlers correctly ignored the failure, they took about 5 seconds for the taskqueue.add() call to timeout and move on to processing the rest of the page. This therefore made my site run very slowly.
So, is it possible to enqueue a task asynchronously - meaning a way to add a task, without waiting to see if the addition succeeded?
Alternatively, is there a way to reduce that timeout from 5 seconds down to eg 1 second?
Thanks.
You can use the new taskqueue methods create_rpc and add_async. If you don't care if the add succeeds, simply call add_async and ignore the result. If you care, but only want to wait 1 second, set the deadline when calling create_rpc, and use the return value as the RPC argument to add_async. Call get_result to find out if the tasks were successfully added.
I think you can't do anything about it because the RPC call underneath the add method is a synchronous blocking API call.
You could try to add some check using the Capabilities API.
I am pretty sure GAE announced that TQ adds will be async with the next release (experimental feature).