I'm working on a solution where I have a SQS queue with Lambda trigger. My understanding is Lambda will receive messages in batches to be processed, and once Lambda function is successful, the messages in the SQS queue is automatically deleted. However, how do I only allow some of those messages to be deleted?
Let's assume this use case:
Lambda function receives a batch with 10 messages, and only 7 messages are valid and can be processed, and the other 3 messages needs to be reprocessed at later point.
My initial thought was I could update the visibility timeout via boto3.sqs.change_visibility_timeout for each of the 3 messages to have it reprocessed after the timeout, however, since overall lambda function execution is successful, all 10 messages are deleted from SQS queue.
Any suggestions?
Yes, by default, the Lambda function deletes all the messages upon success. You would need to handle this in your code, but not by changing the visibility timeout of the messages.
Add DLQ (dead-letter queue) that will actually handle the failed messages (messages go to DLQ after a certain number of failed attempts to be processed, depending on how you set it up)
You have few options here:
You can handle each item yourself, and delete messages that are processed successfully. In case of a message that's not successful, you can throw an error and it won't be deleted automatically by the lambda function
If you use JavaScript you can try with Middy
If you use Python, you can use Lambda Powertools Python
For AWS Lambdas with an SQS trigger, by default, when your function encounters an error processing one or more messages in a given batch, the entire batch is marked as a failure. All of the messages in the batch are made visible again in the queue. Depending on your redrive policy, you can end up repeatedly processing successful messages along with the failures.
Rather than change the visibility timeout, the simplest way to specify which messages should be retried later and which can safely be deleted from the queue is to change the function response type to ReportBatchItemFailures. This allows you to return a list of failed message ids, indicating that only those messages in the batch should be made visible again in the queue.
Here's what the reporting syntax looks like for a handler function in Node.js:
exports.handler = async (event) => {
// Process the event
const batchItemFailureResponse = {
batchItemFailures: [
{
itemIdentifier: "idFailedMessage1"
},
{
itemIdentifier: "idFailedMessage2"
},
{
itemIdentifier: "idFailedMessage3"
}
]
};
return batchItemFailureResponse;
};
There is more information to be found in the official documentation.
This response type is configured when setting a queue as an event source for the Lambda. If you're configuring from the console, navigate to the Lambda function page, select the Configuration tab, and then choose Triggers. Then choose Add Trigger and choose the SQS trigger type. In addition to providing the standard parameters, be sure to check the box under Report batch item failures after expanding Additional Settings. It should look something like this:
Add trigger with batch failure reporting
This parameter must be set when first creating the trigger.
This response type can also be defined if you use CloudFormation templates to provision your resources. See the AWS documentation for more information. Note that if you use AWS SAM event source mappings, the documentation suggests that adding FunctionResponseTypes to the YAML with ReportBatchItemFailures in the type list isn't supported. That is incorrect, the documentation is simply outdated. There is an open issue around addressing this oversight.
Finally, in addition to reporting batch item failures, you should provision a target DLQ (dead-letter queue) and determine a reasonable maximum receive count so that action can be taken on messages that fail repeatedly.
Related
I have a pretty standard setup of feeding SQS to Lambda. The lambda reads the message and makes a web request to a defined endpoint.
If I encounter an exception during processing of the SQS message that is due to the form of the message then I put the message on a dead letter queue.
If I encounter an error with the web request, I put the message back on the feeding queue to make the HTTP request at a later time.
This seems to work fine, but we just ran into an issue where an HTTP endpoint was down for 4 days and the feeding queue dropped the message. I imagine this has something to do with the retention period setting of the queue.
Questions
Is there a way to know, in the lambda, how many times a message has been replayed?
How did the feeder queue know that the message that was re-enqueued was the same as the one that was originally put on the queue?
I'm currently not explicitly deleting a message off the queue. Not having that, hasn't seemed to cause any issues, no re-processing of messages or anything. Should I be explicitly deleting them?
The normal process would be:
The AWS Lambda function is triggered, with the message(s) passed via the event parameter
If the Lambda function successfully processes the message(s), it should return a 'success' code (200) and the message is automatically removed from the queue
If the Lambda function is unable to process the message, it should return a 'failure' code (eg 400) and Amazon SQS will automatically attempt to re-process the message (unless it has exceeded the retry count)
If the Lambda function fails (eg due to a timeout), Amazon SQS will automatically attempt to re-process the message (unless it has exceeded the retry count)
If a message has exceeded its retry count, Amazon SQS will move the message to the Dead Letter Queue
To answer your questions:
If you wish to take responsibility for these activities yourself, you can use the ApproximateReceiveCount attribute on the message. In the request, it appears that you should add AttributeNames=['ApproximateReceiveCount'], but the documentation is a bit contradictory. You might need to use All instead.
Since you are sending a new message to the queue, Amazon SQS is not aware that it is the same message. The message is not 're-enqueued' since it is a new message.
When your Lambda function returns 'success' (200), the message is being deleted off the queue for you.
You might consider using the standard functionality for retries and Dead Letter Queues rather than implementing that logic yourself.
I captured some bugs in my lambda function and then fixed them. Since in my lambda function, I have set maxReceiveCount=10 in the DLQ so lots of data were being retried even until I uploaded the new version.
My question is: if the data was sent before the function was updated, and because of the bugs within it was retried until the new function was uploaded, will the data in the DLQ be processed by the newer version of function? Assume I'm not going to trigger the function for a second time.
After being received the maximum allowed number of times (maxReceiveCount), the message is sent to the DLQ. You have to pull the messages out of the queue to reprocess them.
If you're using event based triggering of your lambda from the queue (which you probably should be), you might want to dequeue the messages from the DLQ and put them on the normal message queue to requeue them.
Edit: A redrive policy can help achieve this : https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSSimpleQueueService/latest/SQSDeveloperGuide/sqs-configure-dead-letter-queue-redrive.html
I'm looking at the the AWS SQS documentation here: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sdk-for-net/v3/developer-guide/ReceiveMessage.html#receive-sqs-message
My understanding is that we need to delete the message using AmazonSQSClient.DeleteMessage() once we're done processing it, but is this necessary when we're working with an SQS triggered Lambda?
I'm testing with a Lambda function that's triggered by an SQSEvent, and unless I'm mistaken, it appears that if the Lambda function runs to completion without throwing any errors, the message does NOT return to the SQS queue. If this is true, the I would rather avoid making that unnecessary call to AmazonSQSClient.DeleteMessage().
Here is a similar question from 2019 with the top answer saying that the SDK does not delete messages automatically and that they need to be explicitly deleted within the code. I'm wondering if anything has changed since then.
Thoughts?
The key here is that you are using the AWS Lambda integration with SQS. In that instance AWS Lambda handles retrieving the messages from the queue (making them available via the event object), and automatically deletes the message from the queue for you if the Lambda function returns a success status. It will not delete the message from the queue if the Lambda function throws an error.
When using AWS Lambda integration with SQS you should not be using the AWS SDK to interact with the SQS queue at all.
Update:
Lambda now supports partial batch failure for SQS whereby the Lambda function can return a list of failed messages and only those will become visible again.
Amazon SQS doesn't automatically delete a message after retrieving it for you, in case you don't successfully receive the message (for example, if the consumers fail or you lose connectivity). To delete a message, you must send a separate request which acknowledges that you've successfully received and processed the message.
This has not changed and likely won’t change in the future as there us no way for SQS to definitively know in all cases if messages have successfully been processed. If SQS started to “assume” what happens downstream it risk becoming unreliable in many scenarios.
Yes, otherwise the next time you ask for a set of messages, you will get the same messages back - maybe not on the next call, but eventually you will. You likely don't want to keep processing the same set of messages over and over.
I'm trying to design a small message processing system based on SQS, Lambda, and SNS. In case of failure, I'd like for the message to be enqueued in a Dead Letter Queue (DLQ) and for a webhook to be called.
I'd like to know what the most canonical or reasonable way of achieving that would look like.
Currently, if everything goes well, the process should be as follows:
SQS (in place to handle retries) enqueues a message
Lambda gets invoked by SQS and processes the message
Lambda sends a webhook and finishes normally
If something in the lambda goes wrong (success webhook cannot be called, task at hand cannot be processed), the easiest way to achieve what I want seems to be to set up a DLQ1 that SQS would put the failed messages in. An auxiliary lambda would then be called to process this message, pass it to SNS, which would call the failure webhook, and also forward the message to DLQ2, the final/true DLQ.
Is that the best approach?
One alternative I know of is Alarms, though I've been warned that they are quite tricky. Another one would be to have lambda call the error reporting webhook if there's a failure on the last retry, although that somehow seems inappropriate.
Thanks!
Your architecture looks good enough in case of success, but I personally find it quite confusing if anything goes wrong as I don't see why you need two DLQs to begin with.
Here's what I would do in case of failure:
Define a DLQ on your source SQS Queue and set the maxReceiveCount to e.g. 3, meaning if messages fail three times, they will be redirected to the configured DLQ
Create a Lambda that listens to this DLQ.
Execute the webhook inside this Lambda.
Since step 3 automatically deletes the message from the Queue once it has been processed and, apparently, you want the messages to be persisted somewhere, store the content of the message in a file on S3 and store the file metadata (bucket and key) in a table in DynamoDB, so you can always query for failed messages.
I don't see any role for SNS here unless you want multiple subscribers for a given message, but as I see this is not the case.
This way, you need need to maintain only one DLQ and you can get rid of SNS as it's only adding an extra layer of complexity to your architecture.
I'd like to use AWS S3 to allow some users to add files to an S3 bucket.
Then, I'd like to generate an SQS message when a new file has been added.
Last, I'd like to consume the SQS message and process it with a background job worker of a particular class.
I'd like to use SQS message attributes to determine which background job worker class I should use for processing. As the SQS message attribute documentation states:
Message attributes [...] can be used by the consumer of the message to help decide how to handle the message without having to first process the message body.
(via the SQS Developer Guide)
However, under the S3 bucket's Properties, under Advanced Settings, the Events settings do not appear to expose a way to set message attributes.
Is there a way to specify message attributes on an event-by-event basis for events generated from S3?
There is not a way to inject custom message attributes into S3 event notifications... but also note that you may be misinterpreting what message attributes can be used for.
Message attributes [...] can be used by the consumer of the message
This means they provide a mechanism for the consumer to triage a message after the consumer has already received it from the queue.
You can't selectively consume messages based on message attributes. Queue consumers receive the next available message(s) when they poll the queue. They don't get to select which messages they consume.
If you want to divide the messages up by class, you'll need an intermediate process that selectively distributes messages to the appropriate (separate) downstream queues. Better, if your structure allows it, might be different event configurations matching specific patterns that need to go to individual queues.
You should use a Lambda to add messages to the queue, for example with python using BOTO 3 API. Map this Lambda to the S3 Event. http://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/with-s3.html