I am using AWS SQS with dead letter queues.
I can easily insert messages to the dead letter queue if I consume them, but I want messages that weren't consumed for like a hour to be moved to the dead letter queue automatically.
Is this possible?
Am I missing a configuration option?
Regards,
Ido
Dead letter queues are not designed for this purpose; they specifically handle the case where a message can be successfully received, but cannot be processed successfully (source). So in short, this is not currently possible. Alternatively, you could increase the message retention time so that the messages stay for longer on the queue giving your a consumer a chance to start listening again.
Hope that helps :)
Related
I tried using parallel requests but the due to retention by AWS, it does not allow to poll back the same queue unless previously polled messages are deleted.
I however achieved doing the same using the FIFO, but not the standard queue.
Thanks in Advance!
:)
When you say "it does not allow to poll back the same queue unless previously polled messages are deleted", I assume you're talking about the inflight messages per queue limit, which is pretty high at 120,000:
For most standard queues (depending on queue traffic and message backlog), there can be a maximum of approximately 120,000 inflight messages (received from a queue by a consumer, but not yet deleted from the queue). If you reach this limit, Amazon SQS returns the OverLimit error message. To avoid reaching the limit, you should delete messages from the queue after they're processed. You can also increase the number of queues you use to process your messages. To request a limit increase, file a support request.
The expected use case of SQS is to have workers that receive a message, do some work, then delete the message. If you're not following this pattern, I'd strongly recommend reevaluating whether SQS is the right tool for what you're trying to do.
However, if you really have a valid use case for having more than 120K messages inflight at once, you'll need to describe your use case to AWS and get their approval to increase that limit.
I have a series of applications that consume messages from SQS Queues. If for some reason one of these consumers fails and stop consuming messages I'd like to be notified. What's the best way to do this?
Note that some of these queues could only have one message placed into the queue every 2 - 3 days, so waiting for the # of messages in the queue to trigger a notification is not a good option for me.
What I'm looking for is something that can monitor an SQS queue and say "This message has been here for an hour and nothing has processed it ... let someone know."
Possible solution off the top of my head (possibly not the most elegant one) which does not require using CloudWatch at all (according to the comment from OP the required tracking cannot be implemented through CloudWatch alarms). Assume you have the Queue to be processed at Service and the receiving side is implemented through long polling.
Run a Lambda function (say hourly) listening to the Queue and reading messages, however never deleting (Service deletes the messages once processed). On the Queue set the Maximum Receives to any value u want, let's say 3. If Lambda function ran 3 times and all three times message was present in the queue, the message will be pushed to Dead Letter Queue (automatically if the redrive policy is set). Whenever new message is pushed to dead letter queue, it is a good indicator that your service is either down or not handling the requests fast enough. All variables can be changed to suit your needs
Iam sending messages to the queue and using amazon sqs queuing system in a rails application. But since the queue follows FIFO process, it will get the next items in the same fashion. Suppose if I have 100 items in a queue, how can I retrieve the 35th item from the queue and process it. As far as I know, there is no such method that amazon sqs provides for doing it. So is there any other method/workaround where I can achieve the this functionality.
There is no method to do that; SQS does not guarantee order of items in the queue due to its geographically redundant nature; it can't even guarantee FIFO. If you absolutely must process things in order, and need the ability to 'look ahead' in the queue, SQS may not be your best choice. Perhaps a custom made queue in something like DynamoDB may be work better.
SQS is designed to guarantee at-least-once delivery and does not take into account the order of messages. So the simple answer to your question on whether you can do that, is no.
A work around would depend on your use-case:
To split work among different processes handling queue messages and making sure they don't both process the same item - Different queues is one approach, or prefixing every message with an identifier denoting which process is supposed to work on it. For example, if I have 4 daemons's running, I could prefix every message in the queue with the ID of the process which should work on it - 1,2,3 or 4. Every process would only process messages with the number corresponding to it's ID.
Order of arrival is critical - In this case, you're better off not using SQS because it wasn't to be used this way. CloudAMQP is a cloud based service that is based off RabbitMQ which is a true FIFO queue and would suit this case better than SQS.
I have a system that wraps RabbitMQ using erlang and the erlang client. We have the occasional situation where a subscriber goes down and messages queue. We will be implementing a dead-letter queue in the near future but I would like to implement a tool in the mean time to bind to a given queue and PULL all messages. I can then push them off somewhere else and replay them when the subscriber comes back online. However, I am having a hard time determining the best way to do this with the Rabbit tutorials/docs/ Mainly because the tutorials are a bit lacking for erlang clients.
Does anybody have experience with this or something similar?
I think the best thing to do is make the queue set to not auto delete. That way the queue will stay alive when the subscriber goes down. The exchange will continue to push messages to the queue which will store them until the subscriber comes back up and starts reading again.
I am going to make the rails application which integrates the Amazon's cloud services.
I have explore amazon's SNS service which gives the facility of public subscription which i don't want to do. I want to notify only particular subscriber.
For example if I have 5 subscriber in one topic then the notification should be goes to particular subscriber.
I have also explored amazon's SQS in which i have to write a poller which monitor the queue for message. SQS has also a lock mechanism but the problem is that it is distributed so there would be a chance of getting same message from another copy of queue for process.
I want to know that what would be the possible approach to go.
SQS sounds like what you want.
You can run multiple "worker" processes that compete over messages in the queue. Each message is only consumed once. The logic behind the "lock" / timeout that you mention is as follows: if one of your workers were to die after downloading a message, but before processing it, then you want that message to eventually time out and be re-downloaded for processing on another node.
Yes, SQS is built on a polling model. For example, I have a number of use cases in which I use a minutely cron job to poll for new messages in the queue and take action on any messages found. This pattern is stupid simple to build and works wonders for a bunch of use cases -- a handy little "client" script that pushes a message into the queue, and the cron activated script that will process that message within a minute or so.
If your message pattern is extremely sparse -- eg, only a few messages a day -- it may seem wasteful to poll constantly while the queue is empty. It hardly matters.
My original calculation was that a minutely cron job would cost $0.04 (now $0.02) per month. Since then, SQS added a "Long-Polling" feature that lets you achieve sub-second latency on processing new messages by sending 1 "long-poll" message every 20 seconds to poll an idle queue. Plus, they dropped the price 50%. So per month, that's 131k messages (~$0.06), a little bit more expensive, but with near realtime request processing.
Keep in mind that a minutely cron job I described only costs ~$0.04 / month in request load (30d*24h*60m * 1c / 10k msgs). So at a minutely clip, cost shouldn't really be a concern here. Even polling every second, the price rises only to $2.59 / mo, not exactly a bank buster.
However, it is possible to avoid frequent polling using a webservice that takes an SNS HTTP message. Such an architecture would work as follows: client pushes message to SNS, which pushes message to SQS and routes an HTTP request to your webservice, triggering it to drain the queue. You'd still want to poll the queue hourly or daily, just in case an HTTP request was dropped. In the end though, I'm not sure I can think of any scenario which really justifies such complexity. I'd much rather pay $0.04 a month to have a dirt simple cron job polling my queue.