-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Keys limitation (Offline storage issue) #19
Comments
MQTT.js create the first messageId randomly but from the next messageId in the same session is created incrementally. See I think that there is no random conflicts. There is another messageId conflict.
It is not directly related to mqtt-level-store. It is MQTT.js's issue. If we want to solve the issue, I think that we need to store in-flight messageId to some map and check it in Step 3 is some broker trouble situation. If offline publish situation, it could happen without the broker trouble. @mugul, could you clarify the problem? |
Sorry for the confusion with the incrementally messageId... I'll try to explain it better: The problem is when you have no internet for a long time.
At this point, we didnt store the new package, because the key was "taken"... I think we should be able to store any ammount of packets without using MQTT's messageId. I think it could be store's problem, because when MQTT connects, just ask's for a stream of outgoing messages, and doesn't mind how it was stored... only requires that the package has the messageId (but i think is not required to be the key of the storage). The mapping you're saying could be usefull if we change our storage key, to know which packets are in-flight, and which have been sent. (Because we will need a way to relate our internal storage key, and the messageId MQTT is using to send the packet to the broker) Or maybe I'm understanding something wrong. Please tell me if it's still not clear enough, to try to find another way to explain it. |
Is this persisted someplace or is it random per process start? The code links look like it is just in memory, so (if you have written a considerable amount of messages to the outgoing store) there is a definite chance for collision there are as well. If not directly at start then some time after as the advancing id may collide with ids already in store. |
It would cause big breaking change. After user's code call The current If user want to store more than the limit, I think that user should store the message at the user program side. If you want to change MQTT.js to store more than 0xfffe packets, you need to prepare some interface the message is stored (and messageId is NOT allocated) or sent (and messageId is allocated). |
Do you find the current behaviour, where messages may be randomly dropped, especially so in case of restarts, reasonable? |
This might need fixing in MQTT.js. It seems the obvious mistake is for MQTT.js to issue the same id twice |
Continue in a linked MQTT.js issue? |
When MQTT connect's, ask's for pending messages to the storage. This is achieved asking to the outgoing store "createStream()", and the storage returns a stream with all the remaining packets. But, MQTT asumes that each packet has the "packet.messageId" property, and it uses this messageId to send the packet to the broker. (And this ID has to be from 1 to 65.535 by protocol definition) This is why, I still think that the mistake is to use this ID as Key in the storage. Even if I store the packet on my own (and I'm doing so with mqtt-level-store), the storage requires "messageId" to be used as key, and that ID limit's the storage to 65.535 packets. The only way I can see this as an MQTT "fix" is if the messageId is generated when sending the packet, and doesn't require's it from the Storage. |
@mugul , if In addition, there is order problem.
|
@redboltz you have stressed the importance of user's access to
Making
This could be fixed with a So what if we had
|
It is one of messageId purpose. See mqttjs/MQTT.js#658 |
Thanks. Right, so you need to be able to at least delete messages that have been assigned |
@tkurki , I'm not sure the following point. If MQTT.js client receives puback or pubcomp, MQTT.js needs to remove the message that has the messageId in puback or pubcomp packet. If MQTT.js client receives pubrec (and send back pubrel automatially), MQTT.js needs to update the publish message to pubrel message that has the messageId in pubrec packet. How to achieve this? |
@redboltz If it doesn't has the key (lets call it |
I'm shooting (a) from the sidelines (b) from the hip here, so my suggestions may or may not make sense. But here goes: @redboltz In flight messages would have To support your oops these messages will never get there you should be able to @mugul see the linked MQTT.js issue above and the use case there - you must be able to access (cancel) a message by messageId if you are doing it based on data from the broker, that deals only with But messages that are written to the outgoing store when the broker is offline should be assigned One way to achieve this would be to assign (and persist) unique messageIds when a message is placed in the stream by the store. |
Yes, that is my point. leveldb is a key value store. That can have one key. We can use prefix The current schema is as follows:
packet-by-date make sure the correct order. Sending packets from the store is implemented as NOTE: date contains In order to expand the store over than 0xffff, and works well with existing messageId updating mechanism, we need to do some hack. It is just idea not well considered but...
If online publish is happend, storeMessageId is the same as messageId (MQTT Packet Idenditifer). When the client(MQTT.js library implementation) receives CONNACK, then sends It is different but releated topic that MQTT.js needs to have allocating the new messageId without confliction as I mentioned #19 (comment). And if the client ran out the messageId, then stop sending from the outgoingStore and if the client received puback/pubcomp, then continue sending. |
Just an idea, but mqtt-level-store already uses two leveldb databases, outgoing and incoming. You could store outgoing, queued but not yet in flight messages in a third leveldb. |
I have created a new store that could help with this: https://github.com/robertsLando/mqtt-jsonl-store |
Hi there!
context:
Mqtt protocol has from 1 to 65.535 ids for in flight messages - messages in the middle of transmission between the client and the server.
This storage uses the messageId as key to store a timestamp, and then that timestamp to store the pacakge. But there is a little trouble.
problem:
Mqtt's messageId is generated with a random value between 1 and 65.535, which leave us with only 65.535 possible keys, and with an increasing risk of losing data.
risks:
When the storage is empty, we have a low risk of repeating keys, but when it starts growing, the chance of generating a random value between 1 and 65.535 that we already have stored gets higher, and after 32k packages stored (after a few days without internet connection), the chance is to lose half of the packages.
proposal:
If the local storage could use another, longer and not randomly assigned message id for local storage this would solve the problem.
Then would have to coordinate so that in flight message id's do not clash, and keep track of which message mqtt is sending (for qos > 0), because it can deliver it (and have to delete it from storage), or can fail (and have to insert it in the storage again, if it was pulled out).
Hope I explained myself...
Best regards!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: