Agree --- "Miller, Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But I understood the question was restricted to an > application writing > to a local queue using local bindings vrs client > bindings (i.e., no > transmission queue involved). In that case, I think > local bindings would > always have a performance advantage. The situation > for a distributed > environment would be much different. And, yes, yes, > really tricky. You'd > more-often-than-not need to take measurements to > know for sure. > > -----Original Message----- > From: eugene rosenberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 5:57 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Connecting to more than one queue > managers on solaris, > linux > > > Dennis, > It is really tricky to compare client/server > performance with server/server performance. I agree > that each application MQ client call would lose in > performance compare with application MQ server call > but I believe that the total throughput is better > with > the client/server communication because the number > of > I/O is low. The message is going directly to > destination queue within client/server without be > placed and retrieve on/from transmission queue. > > Eugene > > --- "Miller, Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The client connection has a performance > > disadvantage, mostly because of > > network overhead. After all, every API request > (and > > any messages it > > conveys) must pass over the network to get between > > the MQ client and the > > qmgr. The server channel agent, acting on behalf > of > > the client, uses > > local bindings and should experience about the > same performance as the > > application using local bindings. But the exchange > > of API requests > > between the MQ client and the server channel agent > > is extra work. > > > > I am not in a position to quantify it, though, and > I > > expect it would > > depend greatly on your network configuration. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gurney, Matthew > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 12:48 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Connecting to more than one queue > > managers on solaris, > > linux > > > > > > What would the performance difference of using > > MQClient connections to > > connect to a local Queue manager on the same Unix > > host, compared to > > using a local bindings direct connection to the > > local Queue manager. I > > understand that for Pavel's situation, this be be > > irrelevant, but I am > > concerned with the general case? > > > > Matt. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MQSeries List > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Miller, > > Dennis > > Sent: 01 September 2004 01:13 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Connecting to more than one queue > > managers on solaris, > > linux > > > > > > I understand your hesitance to use MQ client for > > such an app. But think > > about what you are really asking. An app on one > > server with MQM > > credentials for other servers? An app on one > server > > with access to MQM > > internals on another server? Hmmm... > > > > I'm sure you know that without MQ-Client, you > cannot > > even connect to a > > single QMgr across servers, much less multitudes > of > > them. So, if your > > thinking about monitoring even one qmgr by an app > > running on a different > > system, you are talking about some sort of client > > model, by definition. > > > > But it needn't necessarily be the MQ client. You > > could for example, > > write a monitoring agent and run it locally on > each > > qmgr. The user > > interface for your monitoring app is then a client > > to these agents, > > requesting services and receiving replies from > them. > > If you are > > so-inclined, you can even conduct the > request/reply > > exchanges using > > local connections and MQ messages (although, > > depending on what you are > > doing, one might question the wisdom of running a > > monitoring application > > in-band like that). > > > > It is somewhat analagous to how the command server > > works, only > > customized to your specific requirements. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pavel Tolkachev > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:31 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Connecting to more than one queue > > managers on solaris, > > linux > > > > > > Thanks Dennis, > > > > This is a low-level monitoring application > > (requiring mqm credentials, > > by the way). Making it an MQ client makes running > > listener or configured > > a pre-requisite to operate the app even if there > is > > no business purpose > > for them to be there and creates a whole number of > > security issues with > > the too-far-going implications of their possible > > solutions. I will have > > to either live with these consequences or go for > > running several > > instances of the app instead (which is not ideal > for > > my cause, > > either..). > > > > Pavel > > > > > > > > > > > > "Miller, Dennis" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > OM> cc: > > Sent by: MQSeries > > Subject: Re: Connecting > > to more than one queue managers on solaris, linux > > List > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > n.AC.AT> > > > > > > 08/31/2004 04:05 > > PM > > Please respond to > > MQSeries List > > > > > > > > > > > > > === message truncated ===
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 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
