Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
We use the naming convention of .mqm...We have a meeting among the MQA of all platforms on differentiate the range of queue manager name to be used. Having done that, the above dns is unique within our company. - Original Message - From: "Crupi, Margherita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 5:51 AM Subject: Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names we also do this and it works well. But our DNS name consists on .domain.com, as what we've found it that some qmgrs are used by more than one application. Hope this helps -Original Message- From: David Awerbuch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 11 September 2003 2:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names Hey all, I use DNS names for a number of what I feel are great reasons. 1. IP addresses change, but DNS names tend not to. I don't use the host name (VAXX), though, I always use a DNS name like APPL.domain.com. Reason? See #4 below. 2. Every host has a DNS entry setup that points to it, in the format host.domain.com. 3. Every application is further defined by an alias in the format appl.domain.com. 4. Now, I have the networking group assign appl.domain.com as an alias to host host.domain.com. I then connect to appl.domain.com. 5. In the event of an emergency, and we must fall over to the Disaster Recovery system, I have the network group simply realias the appl.domain.com to point to drhost.domain.com, and VIOLA!! in a matter of minutes, DR rerouting is accomplished - there are never many DNS servers in a corporate INTRANET, right? - and there are no required changes to any of the channel or remote queue definitions - host names stay the same, connection names stay the same, etc. After all, isn't that why the concepts of DNS names and aliases and remote queues were all developed to begin with -- to isolate each layer from the other, and reduce the number of external dependencies to a bare minimum. Using my convention, the drastic case of DR switchover and the simple case of application rehosting are both easily accomlished with a couple of commands issued at the network level - the backbone of the company. Reduces all those dependencies to the bottom layer, a single dependency. Hope this helps. David A. Awerbuch, IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist APC Consulting Services, Inc. Providing Automated Solutions to Business Challenges West Hempstead, NY(516) 481-6440 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Kulbir S. Thind To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 6:07 PM Subject: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names Hi there, We have a very large network of MQSeries installations (> 300 installations) that are currently using a mixture of Hostnames and IP addresses for the channel connection names. We are in the process of reviewing our configurations and will be looking to standardise the use of the conname attribute, either go with Hostnames or IP addresses. Our gut feeling is to go with Hostnames as they are more descriptive of what the channel is connected to and also gives us the flexibility of being able to change IP addresses of machines without effecting channel definitions. However, there are people in our team that seem to suggest that using an IP address rather than a hostname would significantly improve performance, is this true? I can believe that there may be a difference in channel startup times but after that there should be no difference, is this correct? Which do people tend to use and why? Thanks, Kulbir. = David A. Awerbuch, IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist APC Consulting Services, Inc. Providing Automated Solutions to Business Challenges West Hempstead, NY(516) 481-6440 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com 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
Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
I believe DNS is a good thing on balance, however there is a down side to using hostnames. The hostname's real IP address or resolved address is cached by local TCP. The resolved IP address gets cached to avoid going to DNS every time to resolve the hostname (saves IO and time). MQ relies on TCP to get work done, so don't blame MQ. If your MQ is running and you make a change to the real IP within DNS, the local box where your MQ is running may not see the update until the local TCP refreshes its cached copy of the real IP address. These refresh rates can be on the order of hours (e.g. 12 - 24 hours). If you are forced to make the change to the hostname under these conditions, you can use the real IP until the cache has been refreshed before going back to using the hostname. A recycle of TCP would work as well. This can make hostnames a bit of a pain. Thanks Frank -Original Message- From: Crupi, Margherita [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 5:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names we also do this and it works well. But our DNS name consists on .domain.com, as what we've found it that some qmgrs are used by more than one application. Hope this helps -Original Message- From: David Awerbuch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 11 September 2003 2:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names Hey all, I use DNS names for a number of what I feel are great reasons. 1. IP addresses change, but DNS names tend not to. I don't use the host name (VAXX), though, I always use a DNS name like APPL.domain.com. Reason? See #4 below. 2. Every host has a DNS entry setup that points to it, in the format host.domain.com. 3. Every application is further defined by an alias in the format appl.domain.com. 4. Now, I have the networking group assign appl.domain.com as an alias to host host.domain.com. I then connect to appl.domain.com. 5. In the event of an emergency, and we must fall over to the Disaster Recovery system, I have the network group simply realias the appl.domain.com to point to drhost.domain.com, and VIOLA!! in a matter of minutes, DR rerouting is accomplished - there are never many DNS servers in a corporate INTRANET, right? - and there are no required changes to any of the channel or remote queue definitions - host names stay the same, connection names stay the same, etc. After all, isn't that why the concepts of DNS names and aliases and remote queues were all developed to begin with -- to isolate each layer from the other, and reduce the number of external dependencies to a bare minimum. Using my convention, the drastic case of DR switchover and the simple case of application rehosting are both easily accomlished with a couple of commands issued at the network level - the backbone of the company. Reduces all those dependencies to the bottom layer, a single dependency. Hope this helps. David A. Awerbuch, IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist APC Consulting Services, Inc. Providing Automated Solutions to Business Challenges West Hempstead, NY(516) 481-6440 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Kulbir S. Thind To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 6:07 PM Subject: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names Hi there, We have a very large network of MQSeries installations (> 300 installations) that are currently using a mixture of Hostnames and IP addresses for the channel connection names. We are in the process of reviewing our configurations and will be looking to standardise the use of the conname attribute, either go with Hostnames or IP addresses. Our gut feeling is to go with Hostnames as they are more descriptive of what the channel is connected to and also gives us the flexibility of being able to change IP addresses of machines without effecting channel definitions. However, there are people in our team that seem to suggest that using an IP address rather than a hostname would significantly improve performance, is this true? I can believe that there may be a difference in channel startup times but after that there should be no difference, is this correct? Which do people tend to use and why? Thanks, Kulbir. = David A. Awerbuch, IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist APC Consulting Services, Inc. Providing Automated Solutions to Business Challenges West Hempstead, NY(516) 481-6440 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com 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 U
Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
we also do this and it works well. But our DNS name consists on .domain.com, as what we've found it that some qmgrs are used by more than one application. Hope this helps -Original Message- From: David Awerbuch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 11 September 2003 2:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names Hey all, I use DNS names for a number of what I feel are great reasons. 1. IP addresses change, but DNS names tend not to. I don't use the host name (VAXX), though, I always use a DNS name like APPL.domain.com. Reason? See #4 below. 2. Every host has a DNS entry setup that points to it, in the format host.domain.com. 3. Every application is further defined by an alias in the format appl.domain.com. 4. Now, I have the networking group assign appl.domain.com as an alias to host host.domain.com. I then connect to appl.domain.com. 5. In the event of an emergency, and we must fall over to the Disaster Recovery system, I have the network group simply realias the appl.domain.com to point to drhost.domain.com, and VIOLA!! in a matter of minutes, DR rerouting is accomplished - there are never many DNS servers in a corporate INTRANET, right? - and there are no required changes to any of the channel or remote queue definitions - host names stay the same, connection names stay the same, etc. After all, isn't that why the concepts of DNS names and aliases and remote queues were all developed to begin with -- to isolate each layer from the other, and reduce the number of external dependencies to a bare minimum. Using my convention, the drastic case of DR switchover and the simple case of application rehosting are both easily accomlished with a couple of commands issued at the network level - the backbone of the company. Reduces all those dependencies to the bottom layer, a single dependency. Hope this helps. David A. Awerbuch, IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist APC Consulting Services, Inc. Providing Automated Solutions to Business Challenges West Hempstead, NY(516) 481-6440 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Kulbir S. Thind To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 6:07 PM Subject: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names Hi there, We have a very large network of MQSeries installations (> 300 installations) that are currently using a mixture of Hostnames and IP addresses for the channel connection names. We are in the process of reviewing our configurations and will be looking to standardise the use of the conname attribute, either go with Hostnames or IP addresses. Our gut feeling is to go with Hostnames as they are more descriptive of what the channel is connected to and also gives us the flexibility of being able to change IP addresses of machines without effecting channel definitions. However, there are people in our team that seem to suggest that using an IP address rather than a hostname would significantly improve performance, is this true? I can believe that there may be a difference in channel startup times but after that there should be no difference, is this correct? Which do people tend to use and why? Thanks, Kulbir. = David A. Awerbuch, IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist APC Consulting Services, Inc. Providing Automated Solutions to Business Challenges West Hempstead, NY(516) 481-6440 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com 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
Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
Hey all, I use DNS names for a number of what I feel are great reasons. 1. IP addresses change, but DNS names tend not to. I don't use the host name (VAXX), though, I always use a DNS name like APPL.domain.com. Reason? See #4 below. 2. Every host has a DNS entry setup that points to it, in the format host.domain.com. 3. Every application is further defined by an alias in the format appl.domain.com. 4. Now, I have the networking group assign appl.domain.com as an alias to host host.domain.com. I then connect to appl.domain.com. 5. In the event of an emergency, and we must fall over to the Disaster Recovery system, I have the network group simply realias the appl.domain.com to point to drhost.domain.com, and VIOLA!! in a matter of minutes, DR rerouting is accomplished - there are never many DNS servers in a corporate INTRANET, right? - and there are no required changes to any of the channel or remote queue definitions - host names stay the same, connection names stay the same, etc. After all, isn't that why the concepts of DNS names and aliases and remote queues were all developed to begin with -- to isolate each layer from the other, and reduce the number of external dependencies to a bare minimum. Using my convention, the drastic case of DR switchover and the simple case of application rehosting are both easily accomlished with a couple of commands issued at the network level - the backbone of the company. Reduces all those dependencies to the bottom layer, a single dependency. Hope this helps. David A. Awerbuch, IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist APC Consulting Services, Inc. Providing Automated Solutions to Business Challenges West Hempstead, NY(516) 481-6440 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Kulbir S. Thind To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 6:07 PM Subject: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names Hi there, We have a very large network of MQSeries installations (> 300 installations) that are currently using a mixture of Hostnames and IP addresses for the channel connection names. We are in the process of reviewing our configurations and will be looking to standardise the use of the conname attribute, either go with Hostnames or IP addresses. Our gut feeling is to go with Hostnames as they are more descriptive of what the channel is connected to and also gives us the flexibility of being able to change IP addresses of machines without effecting channel definitions. However, there are people in our team that seem to suggest that using an IP address rather than a hostname would significantly improve performance, is this true? I can believe that there may be a difference in channel startup times but after that there should be no difference, is this correct? Which do people tend to use and why? Thanks, Kulbir. = David A. Awerbuch, IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist APC Consulting Services, Inc. Providing Automated Solutions to Business Challenges West Hempstead, NY(516) 481-6440 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com 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
Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
I totally agree. Our network is in a constant state of change, but our host
names change much less frequently. So I get to ignore most of the things
that change here. I doubt that there's any appreciable response time hit
either, because I would assume that the host-to-IP translation only is done
at channel start anyway.
I
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: MQSeriescc:
List Subject: Re: Hostnames or IP addresses
for channel connection names
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
N.AC.AT>
09/10/2003 05:35
AM
Please respond to
MQSeries List
Hi Kulbir,
IMO, you should always use DNS, and refuse to set up a channel connection
by IP address. Before we took this stand, we'd been bitten by folk out in
the 'Fischer Price' world changing the IP of a server and failing to notify
us. If they forget to have the DNS record changed, then it'll be picked up
in basic system testing.
Ian
-Original Message-
From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Kulbir S. Thind
Sent: Wednesday, 10 September 2003 20:07
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
Hi there,
We have a very large network of MQSeries installations (> 300
installations) that are currently using a mixture of Hostnames and IP
addresses for the channel connection names. We are in the process of
reviewing our configurations and will be looking to standardise the
use of the conname attribute, either go with Hostnames or IP
addresses.
Our gut feeling is to go with Hostnames as they are more descriptive
of what the channel is connected to and also gives us the flexibility
of being able to change IP addresses of machines without effecting
channel definitions. However, there are people in our team that seem
to suggest that using an IP address rather than a hostname would
significantly improve performance, is this true? I can believe that
there may be a difference in channel startup times but after that
there should be no difference, is this correct?
Which do people tend to use and why?
Thanks,
Kulbir.
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
Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
I personally prefer using host names because of the ease of changing IP addresses should the need arise. However, that being said, I have always reverted to the use of hard IP addresses because I have never found a customer account that maintains their Name Servers in a manner that allows for any level of confidence in them. Cheers... Jim Nuckolls Kulbir S. Thind wrote: Hi there, We have a very large network of MQSeries installations (> 300 installations) that are currently using a mixture of Hostnames and IP addresses for the channel connection names. We are in the process of reviewing our configurations and will be looking to standardise the use of the conname attribute, either go with Hostnames or IP addresses. Our gut feeling is to go with Hostnames as they are more descriptive of what the channel is connected to and also gives us the flexibility of being able to change IP addresses of machines without effecting channel definitions. However, there are people in our team that seem to suggest that using an IP address rather than a hostname would significantly improve performance, is this true? I can believe that there may be a difference in channel startup times but after that there should be no difference, is this correct? Which do people tend to use and why? Thanks, Kulbir. 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
Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
Using DNS name could free us from caring IP address change. It appears that after DNS resolution (at channel start), the queue manager is in fact talking in IP address. Hence, I guess the performance improvement only appears at channel startup, if any. However, how often will the channel being start/stop? - Original Message - From: Kulbir S. Thind To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 6:07 PM Subject: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names Hi there, We have a very large network of MQSeries installations (> 300 installations) that are currently using a mixture of Hostnames and IP addresses for the channel connection names. We are in the process of reviewing our configurations and will be looking to standardise the use of the conname attribute, either go with Hostnames or IP addresses. Our gut feeling is to go with Hostnames as they are more descriptive of what the channel is connected to and also gives us the flexibility of being able to change IP addresses of machines without effecting channel definitions. However, there are people in our team that seem to suggest that using an IP address rather than a hostname would significantly improve performance, is this true? I can believe that there may be a difference in channel startup times but after that there should be no difference, is this correct? Which do people tend to use and why? Thanks, Kulbir.
Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
Kulbir - I'd vote for Hostnames because it allows you to change the IP address without needing to go in and change potentially a host (no pun intended) of definitions. Also, I think it's more descriptive (sort of like they used to say that Cobol was self-documenting). That said, be aware that this can (and has!) caused problems if the hostname propagation hasn't gotten to where it needs to get to before you try to connect. Rebecca Bullock Computer Sciences Corporation MFCoE Princeton, NJ 08541 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Kulbir S. Thind [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 6:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names Hi there, We have a very large network of MQSeries installations (> 300 installations) that are currently using a mixture of Hostnames and IP addresses for the channel connection names. We are in the process of reviewing our configurations and will be looking to standardise the use of the conname attribute, either go with Hostnames or IP addresses. Our gut feeling is to go with Hostnames as they are more descriptive of what the channel is connected to and also gives us the flexibility of being able to change IP addresses of machines without effecting channel definitions. However, there are people in our team that seem to suggest that using an IP address rather than a hostname would significantly improve performance, is this true? I can believe that there may be a difference in channel startup times but after that there should be no difference, is this correct? Which do people tend to use and why? Thanks, Kulbir. ** This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance.
Re: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
Hi Kulbir, IMO, you should always use DNS, and refuse to set up a channel connection by IP address. Before we took this stand, we'd been bitten by folk out in the 'Fischer Price' world changing the IP of a server and failing to notify us. If they forget to have the DNS record changed, then it'll be picked up in basic system testing. Ian -Original Message-From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Kulbir S. ThindSent: Wednesday, 10 September 2003 20:07To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection namesHi there, We have a very large network of MQSeries installations (> 300 installations) that are currently using a mixture of Hostnames and IP addresses for the channel connection names. We are in the process of reviewing our configurations and will be looking to standardise the use of the conname attribute, either go with Hostnames or IP addresses. Our gut feeling is to go with Hostnames as they are more descriptive of what the channel is connected to and also gives us the flexibility of being able to change IP addresses of machines without effecting channel definitions. However, there are people in our team that seem to suggest that using an IP address rather than a hostname would significantly improve performance, is this true? I can believe that there may be a difference in channel startup times but after that there should be no difference, is this correct? Which do people tend to use and why? Thanks, Kulbir.
Hostnames or IP addresses for channel connection names
Hi there, We have a very large network of MQSeries installations (> 300 installations) that are currently using a mixture of Hostnames and IP addresses for the channel connection names. We are in the process of reviewing our configurations and will be looking to standardise the use of the conname attribute, either go with Hostnames or IP addresses. Our gut feeling is to go with Hostnames as they are more descriptive of what the channel is connected to and also gives us the flexibility of being able to change IP addresses of machines without effecting channel definitions. However, there are people in our team that seem to suggest that using an IP address rather than a hostname would significantly improve performance, is this true? I can believe that there may be a difference in channel startup times but after that there should be no difference, is this correct? Which do people tend to use and why? Thanks, Kulbir.
