Re: [Quickfixj-users] Message Resliency On FIX Initiator side

[Rahul G. <rah...@ho...>]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the information.

Comments inline

[Chris]what do you mean by "how it can be tested"? Pull the network cable?? ;) Alternatively you could ask the other side to kill their Acceptor.
[Rahul]As soon as I pull the network cable or kill the Acceptor(Our own FIX simulator as external Acceptor is not in our control), the FIX session immediately detects that the TCP/IP connection is broken and marks itself as disconnected. This makes simulating this scenario nearly impossible(at least for me:) ). That's why I asked if someone has ever tested this on the Initiator side and If someone can suggest testing this in a predictable manner. Or, if any quickfixj expert can confirm that using FileStoreFactory  on initiator side will ensure the expectation as you suggested => 'The expectation would be that the remote side gets all missing messages by re-requesting them via ResendRequest on the next Logon'.

Thanks
Rahul
________________________________
From: Christoph John <chr...@ma...>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 5:25 PM
To: qui...@li...; Rahul Gaur
Subject: Re: [Quickfixj-users] Message Resliency On FIX Initiator side

Hi,

what do you mean by "how it can be tested"? Pull the network cable?? ;) Alternatively you could ask the other side to kill their Acceptor.
The expectation would be that the remote side gets all missing messages by re-requesting them via ResendRequest on the next Logon.

Cheers,
Chris.

On 15/10/18 13:48, Rahul Gaur wrote:

QuickFIX/J Documentation: http://www.quickfixj.org/documentation/
QuickFIX/J Support: http://www.quickfixj.org/support/





Hi All,

We have a typical FIX setup in which we have one Initiator connecting to an external Acceptor and are exchanging FIX messages with each other. On Initiator side we are using FileStoreFactory as MessageFactory and caching 10000 outgoing messages. We need to test a resiliency scenario wherein the Acceptor goes down while some of the messages from Initiator are still in-flight. Can you suggest how it can be tested and also what is the expectation in the above scenario.

The quickfixj version on initiator side is 1.6.3

Thanks
Rahul






_______________________________________________
Quickfixj-users mailing list
Qui...@li...<mailto:Qui...@li...>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quickfixj-users



--
Christoph John
Software Engineering
T +49 241 557080-28
chr...@ma...<mailto:chr...@ma...>

MACD GmbH
Oppenhoffallee 103
52066 Aachen, Germany
www.macd.com<http://www.macd.com>

Amtsgericht Aachen: HRB 8151
Ust.-Id: DE 813021663
Geschäftsführer: George Macdonald