On 09/18/2014 09:25 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 09/18/2014 03:45 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> On 09/18/2014 04:09 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
>>> Is the replication synchronous or asynchronous with respect to client
>>> calls? E.g. will the response to a post of messages be returned only
>>> once the replication of those messages is confirmed? Likewise when
>>> deleting a message, is the response only returned when replicas of the
>>> message are deleted?
>> It depends on the driver implementation and/or storage configuration.
>> For example, in the mongodb driver, we use the default write concern
>> called "acknowledged". This means that as soon as the message gets to
>> the master node (note it's not written on disk yet nor replicated) zaqar
>> will receive a confirmation and then send the response back to the
>> client.
> So in that mode it's unreliable. If there is failure right after the
> response is sent the message may be lost, but the client believes it has
> been confirmed so will not resend.
>> This is also configurable by the deployer by changing the
>> default write concern in the mongodb uri using
>> [0] http://docs.mongodb.org/manual/reference/connection-string/#uri.w
> So you could change that to majority to get reliable publication
> (at-least-once).

Right, to help with the fight for a world with saner defaults, I think
it'd be better to use majority as the default write concern in the
mongodb driver.

>>> What do you mean by 'streaming messages'?
>> I'm sorry, that went out wrong. I had the "browsability" term in my head
>> and went with something even worse. By streaming messages I meant
>> polling messages without claiming them. In other words, at-least-once is
>> guaranteed by default, whereas once-and-only-once is guaranteed just if
>> claims are used.
> I don't see that the claim mechanism brings any stronger guarantee, it
> just offers a competing consumer behaviour where browsing is
> non-competing (non-destructive). In both cases you require the client to
> be able to remember which messages it had processed in order to ensure
> exactly once. The claim reduces the scope of any doubt, but the client
> still needs to be able to determine whether it has already processed any
> message in the claim already.

The client needs to remember which messages it had processed if it
doesn't delete them (ack) after it has processed them. It's true the
client could also fail after having processed the message which means it
won't be able to ack it.

That said, being able to prevent other consumers to consume a specific
message can bring a stronger guarantee depending on how messages are
processed. I mean, claiming a message guarantees that throughout the
duration of that claim, no other client will be able to consume the
claimed messages, which means it allows messages to be consumed only once.

> [...]
>>> That marker is a sequence number of some kind that is used to provide
>>> ordering to queries? Is it generated by the database itself?
>> It's a sequence number to provide ordering to queries, correct.
>> Depending on the driver, it may be generated by Zaqar or the database.
>> In mongodb's case it's generated by Zaqar[0].
> Zaqar increments a counter held within the database, am I reading that
> correctly? So mongodb is responsible for the ordering and atomicity of
> multiple concurrent requests for a marker?


The message posting code is here[0] in case you'd like to take a look at
the logic used for mongodb (any feedback is obviously very welcome):



Flavio Percoco

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to