ActiveMQ：消费者一旦被选择处理特定的消息组，就不会收到非分组的消息

Question

We're using ActiveMQ (5.14.5). We have a single producer, and multiple consumers on the same queue. From time to time we set JMSXGroupID to group several messages together to be consumed on a single consumer. This works as expected. In parallel, the producer continues to send non-grouped messages (ie without JMSXGroupID)

The problem: We noticed that once a consumer was selected to process a specific group, it no longer gets the non-grouped messages. Even if it is completely idle. The non-grouped messages are always sent to the other consumers. The rogue consumer returns to consume non-grouped messages only after we close the group that was assigned to it (by setting JMSXGroupSeq=-1).

Is this a normal behavior? We expected that non-grouped messages will continue to be delivered in the same round-robin fashion as usual, to all consumers. We were unable to find a clear reference to this in ActiveMQ documentation.

Answer 1

There's a bit of a no-win situation for the message broker here. If there are active message groups in play, the the broker has to assume that further messages will be produced that fall into those groups. So a message consumer that has become bound to a particular group needs to remain available to consumer later messages of that group, rather than ungrouped messages. After all, an ungrouped message can be handled elsewhere, while a grouped message can't.

However, we also want to have a fair-ish distribution of messages between consumers. So it makes sense that a consumer that is bound to a group, or groups, could take some work when it is idle.

But how do we know it is idle? What happens if a consumer takes a bunch of ungrouped messages (and don't forget the default pre-fetch behaviour), and then new messages arrive that match its specific group?

The fact that closing a group restores the "group consumer" to default behaviour suggests to me that this is not a bug, but a deliberate attempt to make a reasonable compromise in a tricky situation. It seems reasonable to me to ask for a feature to be added, where "group consumers" can take part in ungrouped workload, but I would be inclined to see that as an enhancement.

Just my $0.02, of course.