Skip to content

Conversation

@the-mikedavis
Copy link
Collaborator

Projections might not be available in a mixed-version scenario where a cluster has nodes which are all blank/uninitialized and the majority of nodes run a version of Khepri with a new machine version while the minority does not have the new machine version's code.

In this case, the cluster's effective machine version will be set to the newer version as the majority of members have access to the new code. The older version members will be unable to apply commands including the register_projection commands that set up these ETS tables. When these ETS tables don't exist, calls like ets:tab2list/1 or ets:lookup/2 cause badarg errors.

We use default empty values when ets:whereis/1 returns undefined for a projection table name. Instead we could use local queries or leader queries. Writing equivalent queries is a fair amount more work and the code would be hard to test. ets:whereis/1 should only return undefined in the above scenario which should only be a problem in our mixed-version testing - not in practice.

Projections might not be available in a mixed-version scenario where a
cluster has nodes which are all blank/uninitialized and the majority
of nodes run a version of Khepri with a new machine version while the
minority does not have the new machine version's code.

In this case, the cluster's effective machine version will be set to
the newer version as the majority of members have access to the new
code. The older version members will be unable to apply commands
including the `register_projection` commands that set up these ETS
tables. When these ETS tables don't exist, calls like `ets:tab2list/1`
or `ets:lookup/2` cause `badarg` errors.

We use default empty values when `ets:whereis/1` returns `undefined` for
a projection table name. Instead we could use local queries or leader
queries. Writing equivalent queries is a fair amount more work and the
code would be hard to test. `ets:whereis/1` should only return
`undefined` in the above scenario which should only be a problem in
our mixed-version testing - not in practice.
@the-mikedavis the-mikedavis merged commit 8c6b866 into main Jul 11, 2024
@the-mikedavis the-mikedavis deleted the md/khepri-projections-wrap-ets-calls branch July 11, 2024 16:27
the-mikedavis added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2024
rabbit_db_*: Wrap `ets` calls to projections in `whereis/1` checks (backport #11667)
the-mikedavis added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2024
rabbit_db_*: Wrap `ets` calls to projections in `whereis/1` checks (backport #11667) (backport #11677)
@dumbbell
Copy link
Collaborator

Instead of ets:whereis() + the read, what about performing the read in a try/catch block and returning the fallback value in catch error:badarg?

In a regular situation, we would only have one ETS call, not two.

It is also atomic: if for whatever reason, the ETS table goes away between ets:whereis() and the read, we still get the badarg.

ansd added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 16, 2025
ansd added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 17, 2025
* Add test case for binding args Khepri regression

This commit adds a test case for a regression/bug that occurs in Khepri.
```
make -C deps/rabbit ct-bindings t=cluster:binding_args RABBITMQ_METADATA_STORE=mnesia
```
succeeds, but
```
make -C deps/rabbit ct-bindings t=cluster:binding_args RABBITMQ_METADATA_STORE=khepri
```
fails.

The problem is that ETS table `rabbit_khepri_index_route` cannot
differentiate between two bindings with different binding arguments, and
therefore deletes entries too early, leading to wrong routing decisions.

The solution to this bug is to include the binding arguments in the
`rabbit_khepri_index_route` projection, similar to how the binding args
are also included in the `rabbit_index_route` Mnesia table.

This bug/regression is an edge case and exists if the source exchange
type is `direct` or `fanout` and if different bindings arguments are
used by client apps. Note that such binding arguments are entirely
ignored when RabbitMQ performs routing decisions for the `direct` or
`fanout` exchange. However, there might be client apps that use binding
arguments to add some metadata to the binding, for example `app-id` or
`user` or `purpose` and might use this metadata as a form of reference
counting in deciding when to delete `auto-delete` exchanges or just for
informational/operational purposes.

* Fix regression with Khepri binding args

Fix #14533

* Speed up fanout exchange

Resolves #14531

 ## What?
Increase end-to-end message throughput for messages routed via the fanout exchange by ~42% (see benchmark below).
In addition to the fanout exchange, a similar speed up is achieved for the following exchange types:
* modulus hash
* random
* recent history

This applies only if Khepri is enabled.

 ## How?
Use an additional routing table (projection) whose table key is the source exchange.
Looking up the destinations happens then by an ETS table key.

Prior to this commit, CPUs were busy compiling the same match spec for every incoming message.

 ## Benchmark
1. Start RabbitMQ:
```
make run-broker RABBITMQ_SERVER_ADDITIONAL_ERL_ARGS="+S 5" \
    RABBITMQ_CONFIG_FILE="advanced.config" PLUGINS="rabbitmq_management"
```
where `advanced.config` contains:
```
[
 {rabbitmq_management_agent, [
  {disable_metrics_collector, true}
 ]}
].
```

2. Create a queue and binding:
```
deps/rabbitmq_management/bin/rabbitmqadmin declare queue queue_type=classic durable=true name=q1 && \
deps/rabbitmq_management/bin/rabbitmqadmin declare binding source=amq.fanout destination=q1
```

3. Create the load
```
java -jar target/perf-test.jar -p -e amq.fanout -u q1 -s 5 --autoack -z 60
```

Before this commit:
```
sending rate avg: 97394 msg/s
receiving rate avg: 97394 msg/s
```

After this commit:
```
sending rate avg: 138677 msg/s
receiving rate avg: 138677 msg/s
```

The CPU flamegraph shows that `rabbit_exchange:route/3` consumes the following CPU amounts:
* 13.5% before this commit
* 3.4% after this commit

 ## Downsides
Additional ETS memory usage for the new projection table.
However, the new table does not store any binding entries for the following
source exchange types:
* direct
* headers
* topic
* x-local-random

* Add exchange binding tests

Test that exchange bindings work correctly with the new projection
tables `rabbit_khepri_route_by_source` and
`rabbit_khepri_route_by_source_key`.

* Always register all projections

Khepri won’t modify a projection that is already registered (based on its name).

* Protect ets:lookup_element/4 in try catch

See #11667 (comment)
for rationale.
mergify bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 17, 2025
* Add test case for binding args Khepri regression

This commit adds a test case for a regression/bug that occurs in Khepri.
```
make -C deps/rabbit ct-bindings t=cluster:binding_args RABBITMQ_METADATA_STORE=mnesia
```
succeeds, but
```
make -C deps/rabbit ct-bindings t=cluster:binding_args RABBITMQ_METADATA_STORE=khepri
```
fails.

The problem is that ETS table `rabbit_khepri_index_route` cannot
differentiate between two bindings with different binding arguments, and
therefore deletes entries too early, leading to wrong routing decisions.

The solution to this bug is to include the binding arguments in the
`rabbit_khepri_index_route` projection, similar to how the binding args
are also included in the `rabbit_index_route` Mnesia table.

This bug/regression is an edge case and exists if the source exchange
type is `direct` or `fanout` and if different bindings arguments are
used by client apps. Note that such binding arguments are entirely
ignored when RabbitMQ performs routing decisions for the `direct` or
`fanout` exchange. However, there might be client apps that use binding
arguments to add some metadata to the binding, for example `app-id` or
`user` or `purpose` and might use this metadata as a form of reference
counting in deciding when to delete `auto-delete` exchanges or just for
informational/operational purposes.

* Fix regression with Khepri binding args

Fix #14533

* Speed up fanout exchange

Resolves #14531

 ## What?
Increase end-to-end message throughput for messages routed via the fanout exchange by ~42% (see benchmark below).
In addition to the fanout exchange, a similar speed up is achieved for the following exchange types:
* modulus hash
* random
* recent history

This applies only if Khepri is enabled.

 ## How?
Use an additional routing table (projection) whose table key is the source exchange.
Looking up the destinations happens then by an ETS table key.

Prior to this commit, CPUs were busy compiling the same match spec for every incoming message.

 ## Benchmark
1. Start RabbitMQ:
```
make run-broker RABBITMQ_SERVER_ADDITIONAL_ERL_ARGS="+S 5" \
    RABBITMQ_CONFIG_FILE="advanced.config" PLUGINS="rabbitmq_management"
```
where `advanced.config` contains:
```
[
 {rabbitmq_management_agent, [
  {disable_metrics_collector, true}
 ]}
].
```

2. Create a queue and binding:
```
deps/rabbitmq_management/bin/rabbitmqadmin declare queue queue_type=classic durable=true name=q1 && \
deps/rabbitmq_management/bin/rabbitmqadmin declare binding source=amq.fanout destination=q1
```

3. Create the load
```
java -jar target/perf-test.jar -p -e amq.fanout -u q1 -s 5 --autoack -z 60
```

Before this commit:
```
sending rate avg: 97394 msg/s
receiving rate avg: 97394 msg/s
```

After this commit:
```
sending rate avg: 138677 msg/s
receiving rate avg: 138677 msg/s
```

The CPU flamegraph shows that `rabbit_exchange:route/3` consumes the following CPU amounts:
* 13.5% before this commit
* 3.4% after this commit

 ## Downsides
Additional ETS memory usage for the new projection table.
However, the new table does not store any binding entries for the following
source exchange types:
* direct
* headers
* topic
* x-local-random

* Add exchange binding tests

Test that exchange bindings work correctly with the new projection
tables `rabbit_khepri_route_by_source` and
`rabbit_khepri_route_by_source_key`.

* Always register all projections

Khepri won’t modify a projection that is already registered (based on its name).

* Protect ets:lookup_element/4 in try catch

See #11667 (comment)
for rationale.

(cherry picked from commit a66c716)
ansd added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 17, 2025
* Add test case for binding args Khepri regression

This commit adds a test case for a regression/bug that occurs in Khepri.
```
make -C deps/rabbit ct-bindings t=cluster:binding_args RABBITMQ_METADATA_STORE=mnesia
```
succeeds, but
```
make -C deps/rabbit ct-bindings t=cluster:binding_args RABBITMQ_METADATA_STORE=khepri
```
fails.

The problem is that ETS table `rabbit_khepri_index_route` cannot
differentiate between two bindings with different binding arguments, and
therefore deletes entries too early, leading to wrong routing decisions.

The solution to this bug is to include the binding arguments in the
`rabbit_khepri_index_route` projection, similar to how the binding args
are also included in the `rabbit_index_route` Mnesia table.

This bug/regression is an edge case and exists if the source exchange
type is `direct` or `fanout` and if different bindings arguments are
used by client apps. Note that such binding arguments are entirely
ignored when RabbitMQ performs routing decisions for the `direct` or
`fanout` exchange. However, there might be client apps that use binding
arguments to add some metadata to the binding, for example `app-id` or
`user` or `purpose` and might use this metadata as a form of reference
counting in deciding when to delete `auto-delete` exchanges or just for
informational/operational purposes.

* Fix regression with Khepri binding args

Fix #14533

* Speed up fanout exchange

Resolves #14531

 ## What?
Increase end-to-end message throughput for messages routed via the fanout exchange by ~42% (see benchmark below).
In addition to the fanout exchange, a similar speed up is achieved for the following exchange types:
* modulus hash
* random
* recent history

This applies only if Khepri is enabled.

 ## How?
Use an additional routing table (projection) whose table key is the source exchange.
Looking up the destinations happens then by an ETS table key.

Prior to this commit, CPUs were busy compiling the same match spec for every incoming message.

 ## Benchmark
1. Start RabbitMQ:
```
make run-broker RABBITMQ_SERVER_ADDITIONAL_ERL_ARGS="+S 5" \
    RABBITMQ_CONFIG_FILE="advanced.config" PLUGINS="rabbitmq_management"
```
where `advanced.config` contains:
```
[
 {rabbitmq_management_agent, [
  {disable_metrics_collector, true}
 ]}
].
```

2. Create a queue and binding:
```
deps/rabbitmq_management/bin/rabbitmqadmin declare queue queue_type=classic durable=true name=q1 && \
deps/rabbitmq_management/bin/rabbitmqadmin declare binding source=amq.fanout destination=q1
```

3. Create the load
```
java -jar target/perf-test.jar -p -e amq.fanout -u q1 -s 5 --autoack -z 60
```

Before this commit:
```
sending rate avg: 97394 msg/s
receiving rate avg: 97394 msg/s
```

After this commit:
```
sending rate avg: 138677 msg/s
receiving rate avg: 138677 msg/s
```

The CPU flamegraph shows that `rabbit_exchange:route/3` consumes the following CPU amounts:
* 13.5% before this commit
* 3.4% after this commit

 ## Downsides
Additional ETS memory usage for the new projection table.
However, the new table does not store any binding entries for the following
source exchange types:
* direct
* headers
* topic
* x-local-random

* Add exchange binding tests

Test that exchange bindings work correctly with the new projection
tables `rabbit_khepri_route_by_source` and
`rabbit_khepri_route_by_source_key`.

* Always register all projections

Khepri won’t modify a projection that is already registered (based on its name).

* Protect ets:lookup_element/4 in try catch

See #11667 (comment)
for rationale.

(cherry picked from commit a66c716)

Co-authored-by: David Ansari <david.ansari@gmx.de>
michaelklishin pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 24, 2025
* Add test case for binding args Khepri regression

This commit adds a test case for a regression/bug that occurs in Khepri.
```
make -C deps/rabbit ct-bindings t=cluster:binding_args RABBITMQ_METADATA_STORE=mnesia
```
succeeds, but
```
make -C deps/rabbit ct-bindings t=cluster:binding_args RABBITMQ_METADATA_STORE=khepri
```
fails.

The problem is that ETS table `rabbit_khepri_index_route` cannot
differentiate between two bindings with different binding arguments, and
therefore deletes entries too early, leading to wrong routing decisions.

The solution to this bug is to include the binding arguments in the
`rabbit_khepri_index_route` projection, similar to how the binding args
are also included in the `rabbit_index_route` Mnesia table.

This bug/regression is an edge case and exists if the source exchange
type is `direct` or `fanout` and if different bindings arguments are
used by client apps. Note that such binding arguments are entirely
ignored when RabbitMQ performs routing decisions for the `direct` or
`fanout` exchange. However, there might be client apps that use binding
arguments to add some metadata to the binding, for example `app-id` or
`user` or `purpose` and might use this metadata as a form of reference
counting in deciding when to delete `auto-delete` exchanges or just for
informational/operational purposes.

* Fix regression with Khepri binding args

Fix #14533

* Speed up fanout exchange

Resolves #14531

 ## What?
Increase end-to-end message throughput for messages routed via the fanout exchange by ~42% (see benchmark below).
In addition to the fanout exchange, a similar speed up is achieved for the following exchange types:
* modulus hash
* random
* recent history

This applies only if Khepri is enabled.

 ## How?
Use an additional routing table (projection) whose table key is the source exchange.
Looking up the destinations happens then by an ETS table key.

Prior to this commit, CPUs were busy compiling the same match spec for every incoming message.

 ## Benchmark
1. Start RabbitMQ:
```
make run-broker RABBITMQ_SERVER_ADDITIONAL_ERL_ARGS="+S 5" \
    RABBITMQ_CONFIG_FILE="advanced.config" PLUGINS="rabbitmq_management"
```
where `advanced.config` contains:
```
[
 {rabbitmq_management_agent, [
  {disable_metrics_collector, true}
 ]}
].
```

2. Create a queue and binding:
```
deps/rabbitmq_management/bin/rabbitmqadmin declare queue queue_type=classic durable=true name=q1 && \
deps/rabbitmq_management/bin/rabbitmqadmin declare binding source=amq.fanout destination=q1
```

3. Create the load
```
java -jar target/perf-test.jar -p -e amq.fanout -u q1 -s 5 --autoack -z 60
```

Before this commit:
```
sending rate avg: 97394 msg/s
receiving rate avg: 97394 msg/s
```

After this commit:
```
sending rate avg: 138677 msg/s
receiving rate avg: 138677 msg/s
```

The CPU flamegraph shows that `rabbit_exchange:route/3` consumes the following CPU amounts:
* 13.5% before this commit
* 3.4% after this commit

 ## Downsides
Additional ETS memory usage for the new projection table.
However, the new table does not store any binding entries for the following
source exchange types:
* direct
* headers
* topic
* x-local-random

* Add exchange binding tests

Test that exchange bindings work correctly with the new projection
tables `rabbit_khepri_route_by_source` and
`rabbit_khepri_route_by_source_key`.

* Always register all projections

Khepri won’t modify a projection that is already registered (based on its name).

* Protect ets:lookup_element/4 in try catch

See #11667 (comment)
for rationale.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants