"option 1 is fine except that you appear to have 2 redundant boxes.."
My thought process was that 2 seperate boxes is safer. If one gets coffee spilled on it and goes down, #2 is still there. Peter Potkay IBM MQSeries Certified Specialist, Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] X 77906 -----Original Message----- From: Brian S. Crabtree [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 10:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Cleints and workload balancing Peter The question is what are you trying to achieve ? - if it is just the throughput then option 1 is fine except that you appear to have 2 redundant boxes - I would prefer an MQI design rather than using clients but using clients is cheaper. If you want resilience as well then you need at least 2 QMs in front of the processing MQ cluster all in a supercluster so that if either of the front end QMs are not available you can still get messages processed. You can morph this back into Option1 using clients instead of a cluster. Brian S. Crabtree EAI Consultant ----- Original Message ----- From: "Potkay, Peter M (PLC, IT)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 9:29 AM Subject: Cleints and workload balancing > 3 machines are set up identically with the same MQ application (get the > request/send back the reply). The goal is to make sure that messages are > processed as fast as possible. > > QM1 is a spoke in our Hub and Spoke architecture. QM1 sends the original > request to QMHub. From QMHub, the message goes to QM2, our client > concentrator. If I set up the three application machines as MQClients, and > have them all open the SAME request queue with an unlimited wait, what will > happen? I assume one of the three (random?) will grab the 1st request and > process it. If another request message lands before whoever grabbed the > first can come back to do its get with unlimited wait again, then the > remaining 2 will fight for the next message. If the all 3 are there waiting, > then any of them, and possibly always the same one, will process the next > message. > > So while I don't have true work load balancing (at the end of the day > Client1 may have got 23%, Client2, 57% and 20% the remaining, and the next > day the numbers could be different), no messages were ever waiting on the > request queue (unless all 3 were busy at the same time). Any pitfalls here? > > Or do I need to forget the QM2 Client concentrator and go to QM1 ---> QMHub > ----> Cluster1, where I install a QM on each of the 3 machines, cluster the > three and then have a cluster queue called RequestQ on all 3. Will messages > leaving QMHub (not in Cluster1) land in a round robin fashion on the 3 > instances of RequestQ? > > > Peter Potkay > IBM MQSeries Certified Specialist, Developer > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X 77906 > > > > This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of > addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged > information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, > disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If > you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender > immediately by return email and delete this communication and destroy all copies. > > Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in > the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com > Archive: http://vm.akh-wien.ac.at/MQSeries.archive Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com Archive: http://vm.akh-wien.ac.at/MQSeries.archive Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com Archive: http://vm.akh-wien.ac.at/MQSeries.archive
