Re: Max no. of qmgrs
Hello everyone, Thanks a lot for your replies. We would have to go with multiple queue managers since this is a migration and would want minimal changes to the existing applications Bill, we are looking at a similar HACMP solution (2 node cluster). Could you tell me what are the specs of the Unix nodes in your environment? Thanks WS --- Bill Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I currently host 3 production queue managers on one AIX box, and if marketing does its job, I may soon add one more. If I had my way, two of those queue mangers would become one. that is because even though they do provide different services, they are both for the same industry. Plus one of them is rather dinky that is to say it has one client connection and four customer queues (two of them are alias definitions). I would love to host those queues and connections on another existing queue manager to conserve resources, and simplify my monitoring and admin tasks. The reason we don't do that is largely political. Operations feels very strongly that the services need to be separate. And because that is the way things were done before I started here two years ago, they won that argument. Fine with me really, I don't have a huge problem with it. I do understand operations point of view. If I host two separate services on one queue manager and then loose that queue manager, I just lost two services not one. My counter point is that we have fairly robust redundancy via HACMP. In the past two years, my unplanned outages have been so low it makes me want to throw a party. So why be paranoid about combining multiple services on one queue manager? The few outages we have had were tied to system resources being stretched to far. Duh, we are running multiple queue managers on box. There is no clear cut answer to your problem, but if it is possible to host multiple services on one queue manager, I say go for it. Bill Anderson SITA Atlanta, GA Standard Messaging Engineering WebSphere MQ Service Owner 770-303-3503 (office) 404-915-3190 (cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mconnect.aero/ W Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CO.UK cc: Sent by: MQSeries Subject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs List [EMAIL PROTECTED] N.AC.AT 05/04/2004 11:01 AM Please respond to MQSeries List Hello, Thanks David, Peter for your replies. In our landscape we have around 6 to 7 queue managers running on separate Unix systems. Now, the plan is to move all these qmgrs to a single AIX server This has advantages of lower license costs. Our team;s task is to arrive at the specs for such a server. And the solution should be scalable to have more queue managers ... Any pointers as to how we go about this? Is this is a reasonable proposition ? Thanks WS --- David C. Partridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There probably is such a limit, and this will primarily be determined by disk space, and shared resources such as semaphores and open file limits and the like. However the return question I have is how many are you contemplating, and why do you want to host many QMs on the same box? Far better to have a few QMs with '000s of queues than many QMs with a few queues each. Dave -Original Message- From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of W Samuel Sent: 04 May 2004 14:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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 Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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
Max no. of qmgrs
Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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: Max no. of qmgrs
http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=59406highlight=#59406 But you should be asking yourself Do I really need all these QMs? Wouldn't the design be better to have 100 queues on 1 QM instead of 1 queue on a 100 QMs? -Original Message- From: W Samuel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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 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
Re: Max no. of qmgrs
There probably is such a limit, and this will primarily be determined by disk space, and shared resources such as semaphores and open file limits and the like. However the return question I have is how many are you contemplating, and why do you want to host many QMs on the same box? Far better to have a few QMs with '000s of queues than many QMs with a few queues each. Dave -Original Message- From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of W Samuel Sent: 04 May 2004 14:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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: Max no. of qmgrs
Theoretically there is no limit. You are only limited by the systems resources. How many do you want anyway? It's better to keep the number of QM's to a minimum. Regards, Gina -Original Message- From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of W Samuel Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 9:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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: Max no. of qmgrs
Hello, Thanks David, Peter for your replies. In our landscape we have around 6 to 7 queue managers running on separate Unix systems. Now, the plan is to move all these qmgrs to a single AIX server This has advantages of lower license costs. Our team;s task is to arrive at the specs for such a server. And the solution should be scalable to have more queue managers ... Any pointers as to how we go about this? Is this is a reasonable proposition ? Thanks WS --- David C. Partridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There probably is such a limit, and this will primarily be determined by disk space, and shared resources such as semaphores and open file limits and the like. However the return question I have is how many are you contemplating, and why do you want to host many QMs on the same box? Far better to have a few QMs with '000s of queues than many QMs with a few queues each. Dave -Original Message- From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of W Samuel Sent: 04 May 2004 14:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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 Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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: Max no. of qmgrs
Have 1 QM on this server. Make it the default. Have all your apps code a blank QM on the MQCONN call, so they connect to the one and only QM. Name your queues by the app: WS.APP1.REQ WS.APP1.REPLY . . . . WS.APP99.REQ WS.APP99.REPLY Now you can run wild card security commands easily. And each app has its own set of queues. I assume this is one AIX box for PRODUCTION. You would have another AIX box for QA? And another for DEV? If yes, this allows you to repeat the above on each server. As you apps migrate from DEV to QA to PROD, there are ZERO coding changes required, and dozens (hundreds?) of apps can play nice on one QM in each environment. -Original Message- From: W Samuel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Thanks David, Peter for your replies. In our landscape we have around 6 to 7 queue managers running on separate Unix systems. Now, the plan is to move all these qmgrs to a single AIX server This has advantages of lower license costs. Our team;s task is to arrive at the specs for such a server. And the solution should be scalable to have more queue managers ... Any pointers as to how we go about this? Is this is a reasonable proposition ? Thanks WS --- David C. Partridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There probably is such a limit, and this will primarily be determined by disk space, and shared resources such as semaphores and open file limits and the like. However the return question I have is how many are you contemplating, and why do you want to host many QMs on the same box? Far better to have a few QMs with '000s of queues than many QMs with a few queues each. Dave -Original Message- From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of W Samuel Sent: 04 May 2004 14:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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 Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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 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
Re: Max no. of qmgrs
I currently host 3 production queue managers on one AIX box, and if marketing does its job, I may soon add one more. If I had my way, two of those queue mangers would become one. that is because even though they do provide different services, they are both for the same industry. Plus one of them is rather dinky that is to say it has one client connection and four customer queues (two of them are alias definitions). I would love to host those queues and connections on another existing queue manager to conserve resources, and simplify my monitoring and admin tasks. The reason we don't do that is largely political. Operations feels very strongly that the services need to be separate. And because that is the way things were done before I started here two years ago, they won that argument. Fine with me really, I don't have a huge problem with it. I do understand operations point of view. If I host two separate services on one queue manager and then loose that queue manager, I just lost two services not one. My counter point is that we have fairly robust redundancy via HACMP. In the past two years, my unplanned outages have been so low it makes me want to throw a party. So why be paranoid about combining multiple services on one queue manager? The few outages we have had were tied to system resources being stretched to far. Duh, we are running multiple queue managers on box. There is no clear cut answer to your problem, but if it is possible to host multiple services on one queue manager, I say go for it. Bill Anderson SITA Atlanta, GA Standard Messaging Engineering WebSphere MQ Service Owner 770-303-3503 (office) 404-915-3190 (cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mconnect.aero/ W Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CO.UK cc: Sent by: MQSeriesSubject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs List [EMAIL PROTECTED] N.AC.AT 05/04/2004 11:01 AM Please respond to MQSeries List Hello, Thanks David, Peter for your replies. In our landscape we have around 6 to 7 queue managers running on separate Unix systems. Now, the plan is to move all these qmgrs to a single AIX server This has advantages of lower license costs. Our team;s task is to arrive at the specs for such a server. And the solution should be scalable to have more queue managers ... Any pointers as to how we go about this? Is this is a reasonable proposition ? Thanks WS --- David C. Partridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There probably is such a limit, and this will primarily be determined by disk space, and shared resources such as semaphores and open file limits and the like. However the return question I have is how many are you contemplating, and why do you want to host many QMs on the same box? Far better to have a few QMs with '000s of queues than many QMs with a few queues each. Dave -Original Message- From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of W Samuel Sent: 04 May 2004 14:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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 Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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: Max no. of qmgrs
In the past two years, my unplanned outages have been so low it makes me want to throw a party. I hope you didn't have plans this weekend! You know you just jinxed yourself! But the point is well made. When have you ever heard of 1 QM crapping out on a server, while the other QMs are fine, and then patting yourself on the back saying Whew, good thing I put those queues on QMB, since QMA is dead!? I never have. QMs are amazing animals capable of coordinating tremendous amounts of work. Unless you are dealing with an app that does huge persistent messaging within syncpoint, AND you are prepared to give that 1 QM a separate physical Hard drive for its logs only, I can't see the reason why from a technical standpoint you would want to split queues between QMs, versus putting them all on one QM. In my opinion, the more QMs you have, the more things there are to go wrong, and more things to monitor. More command servers, more listeners, more repository managers, etc. For the people that say they need to separate apps, why stop there? Just have 1 queue only on every queue manager, and have 1 queue manager only on every server. And only 1 server per building... If you are at a point where there is to much work/queues for a single QM for whatever reason, I don't think adding a second QM on the same server will help. It still has to deal with the same hardware restrictions that are giving #1 a problem. -Original Message- From: Bill Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs I currently host 3 production queue managers on one AIX box, and if marketing does its job, I may soon add one more. If I had my way, two of those queue mangers would become one. that is because even though they do provide different services, they are both for the same industry. Plus one of them is rather dinky that is to say it has one client connection and four customer queues (two of them are alias definitions). I would love to host those queues and connections on another existing queue manager to conserve resources, and simplify my monitoring and admin tasks. The reason we don't do that is largely political. Operations feels very strongly that the services need to be separate. And because that is the way things were done before I started here two years ago, they won that argument. Fine with me really, I don't have a huge problem with it. I do understand operations point of view. If I host two separate services on one queue manager and then loose that queue manager, I just lost two services not one. My counter point is that we have fairly robust redundancy via HACMP. In the past two years, my unplanned outages have been so low it makes me want to throw a party. So why be paranoid about combining multiple services on one queue manager? The few outages we have had were tied to system resources being stretched to far. Duh, we are running multiple queue managers on box. There is no clear cut answer to your problem, but if it is possible to host multiple services on one queue manager, I say go for it. Bill Anderson SITA Atlanta, GA Standard Messaging Engineering WebSphere MQ Service Owner 770-303-3503 (office) 404-915-3190 (cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mconnect.aero/ W Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CO.UK cc: Sent by: MQSeriesSubject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs List [EMAIL PROTECTED] N.AC.AT 05/04/2004 11:01 AM Please respond to MQSeries List Hello, Thanks David, Peter for your replies. In our landscape we have around 6 to 7 queue managers running on separate Unix systems. Now, the plan is to move all these qmgrs to a single AIX server This has advantages of lower license costs. Our team;s task is to arrive at the specs for such a server. And the solution should be scalable to have more queue managers ... Any pointers as to how we go about this? Is this is a reasonable proposition ? Thanks WS --- David C. Partridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There probably is such a limit, and this will primarily be determined by disk space, and shared resources such as semaphores and open file limits and the like. However the return question I have is how many are you contemplating, and why do you want to host many QMs on the same box? Far better to have a few QMs with '000s of queues than many QMs with a few queues each. Dave -Original Message- From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of W Samuel Sent: 04 May 2004 14:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS
Re: Max no. of qmgrs
I would not recommend using default queue managers. Its fine if you have only 1 QM, but I don't think that's realistic (certainly not in my environment). It goes against the IBM support pack recommendations and I ignored this piece of advise and am now paying for it because if applications don't specify a queue manager name, they get to connect to the default (and probably incorrect one). If you have multiple environments on the same box (e.g. both Dev and SysTest on the same host) I would recommend 1 QM for each environment. If MQ had schema names like DB2 and Oracle (I think this is the corect term) I might go with 1 QM with multiple schemas containing the same queue definitions. However, MQ doesn't so I recommend multiple queue managers with the same queue names rather than differently named queues for different environments on the same QM (we tried this also and that didn't work as people promoted their code from one environment to the next without changing their config files containing the queue names). As for names, I would recommend the following structure: APPNAME.DIRECTION.TRANSACTION_NAME For example APP1.INB.XYZ001B for APP1 reading XYZ001B type messages and APP1.OUT.ABC998T for APP1 writing ABC998T type messages You could make the transaction name meaningful if you require (we do - i.e. PLACE_CUSTOMER_ORDER). You can then use remote queue to deliver messages to destination applications: APP1.OUT.ABC998T - APP2.INB.ABC998T And also use alias queues to deliver messages onto common input queues APP2.INB.ABC997T - APP2.INB.ABC_TRANS APP2.INB.ABC998T - APP2.INB.ABC_TRANS This allows you to use wildcard authorities, but keep the inbound and outbound ones separate: Setmqaut -m MYQM -n APP2.INB.** -t queue +get +inq etc... You might also want to add a grouping code somewhere in the structure: APP1.OUT.PHASE1.ABC998T or APP1.PHASE1.OUT.ABC998T etc. Regards John Scott IBM Certified Specialist - MQSeries Argos Ltd -Original Message- From: Potkay, Peter M (PLC, IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 May 2004 16:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs Have 1 QM on this server. Make it the default. Have all your apps code a blank QM on the MQCONN call, so they connect to the one and only QM. Name your queues by the app: WS.APP1.REQ WS.APP1.REPLY . . . . WS.APP99.REQ WS.APP99.REPLY Now you can run wild card security commands easily. And each app has its own set of queues. I assume this is one AIX box for PRODUCTION. You would have another AIX box for QA? And another for DEV? If yes, this allows you to repeat the above on each server. As you apps migrate from DEV to QA to PROD, there are ZERO coding changes required, and dozens (hundreds?) of apps can play nice on one QM in each environment. -Original Message- From: W Samuel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Thanks David, Peter for your replies. In our landscape we have around 6 to 7 queue managers running on separate Unix systems. Now, the plan is to move all these qmgrs to a single AIX server This has advantages of lower license costs. Our team;s task is to arrive at the specs for such a server. And the solution should be scalable to have more queue managers ... Any pointers as to how we go about this? Is this is a reasonable proposition ? Thanks WS --- David C. Partridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There probably is such a limit, and this will primarily be determined by disk space, and shared resources such as semaphores and open file limits and the like. However the return question I have is how many are you contemplating, and why do you want to host many QMs on the same box? Far better to have a few QMs with '000s of queues than many QMs with a few queues each. Dave -Original Message- From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of W Samuel Sent: 04 May 2004 14:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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 Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html Instructions for managing your mailing list
Re: Max no. of qmgrs
they get to connect to the default (and probably incorrect one). That's pessimistic! But probably true, thanks to Murphy. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have dozens and dozens of QMs, all the default, all with their default XMIT queue turned on to point to the Hub QM, and have no problems. The only place I don't do default QMs is inside Microsoft Hardware Clusters. And the only place I don't do Default XMIT queues is inside MQ clusters or on the HUB QMs. By using default QMs, applications have one less thing to worry about as they migrate their code. Apps connecting in Bindings mode can go from DEV to QA to PROD without any coding changes or config file changes at all. By using default XMIT queues, every time I add a spoke QM I do not have to go to every other spoke QM and create yet another QM Alais. And the DLQ on the Hubs act as a convenient dumping ground for lost messages. I suppose if you are forced to have multiple QMs per server (what was the original question again? :-)) maybe a default is not a good idea. And if you do not use a hub / spoke design, then the default XMIT queues may not work as well for you either. It all depends There is a time and place for everything. -Original Message- From: John Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 12:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs I would not recommend using default queue managers. Its fine if you have only 1 QM, but I don't think that's realistic (certainly not in my environment). It goes against the IBM support pack recommendations and I ignored this piece of advise and am now paying for it because if applications don't specify a queue manager name, they get to connect to the default (and probably incorrect one). If you have multiple environments on the same box (e.g. both Dev and SysTest on the same host) I would recommend 1 QM for each environment. If MQ had schema names like DB2 and Oracle (I think this is the corect term) I might go with 1 QM with multiple schemas containing the same queue definitions. However, MQ doesn't so I recommend multiple queue managers with the same queue names rather than differently named queues for different environments on the same QM (we tried this also and that didn't work as people promoted their code from one environment to the next without changing their config files containing the queue names). As for names, I would recommend the following structure: APPNAME.DIRECTION.TRANSACTION_NAME For example APP1.INB.XYZ001B for APP1 reading XYZ001B type messages and APP1.OUT.ABC998T for APP1 writing ABC998T type messages You could make the transaction name meaningful if you require (we do - i.e. PLACE_CUSTOMER_ORDER). You can then use remote queue to deliver messages to destination applications: APP1.OUT.ABC998T - APP2.INB.ABC998T And also use alias queues to deliver messages onto common input queues APP2.INB.ABC997T - APP2.INB.ABC_TRANS APP2.INB.ABC998T - APP2.INB.ABC_TRANS This allows you to use wildcard authorities, but keep the inbound and outbound ones separate: Setmqaut -m MYQM -n APP2.INB.** -t queue +get +inq etc... You might also want to add a grouping code somewhere in the structure: APP1.OUT.PHASE1.ABC998T or APP1.PHASE1.OUT.ABC998T etc. Regards John Scott IBM Certified Specialist - MQSeries Argos Ltd -Original Message- From: Potkay, Peter M (PLC, IT) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 May 2004 16:17 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs Have 1 QM on this server. Make it the default. Have all your apps code a blank QM on the MQCONN call, so they connect to the one and only QM. Name your queues by the app: WS.APP1.REQ WS.APP1.REPLY . . . . WS.APP99.REQ WS.APP99.REPLY Now you can run wild card security commands easily. And each app has its own set of queues. I assume this is one AIX box for PRODUCTION. You would have another AIX box for QA? And another for DEV? If yes, this allows you to repeat the above on each server. As you apps migrate from DEV to QA to PROD, there are ZERO coding changes required, and dozens (hundreds?) of apps can play nice on one QM in each environment. -Original Message- From: W Samuel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Thanks David, Peter for your replies. In our landscape we have around 6 to 7 queue managers running on separate Unix systems. Now, the plan is to move all these qmgrs to a single AIX server This has advantages of lower license costs. Our team;s task is to arrive at the specs for such a server. And the solution should be scalable to have more queue managers ... Any pointers as to how we go about this? Is this is a reasonable proposition ? Thanks WS --- David C. Partridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There probably is such a limit, and this will primarily be determined by disk space, and shared resources such as semaphores and open file limits and the like
Re: Max no. of qmgrs
Bill, I setup a default queue manager of my development machines, but on all production, DR, and QA/UAT machines, there are no default QMs defined. This forces everyone to properly specify the queue manager thay want to communicate with: applications, operators, and spies. Dave A. -Original Message- From: Bill Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 12:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs If your confident that no more than one queue manager will ever exist on a given machine, making it the default is a good thing. If two or more queue managers live on the same machine it is not a good thing. Especially if the default queue manager has a default Xmit queue. Messages that may have wound up on the local dead letter queue because of a simple mistake in the spelling of a queue manager name could wind up disappearing across the default queue manager. That type thing can be hard to debug. I am personally weary of default queue manages and Xmit queues. Bill Anderson SITA Atlanta, GA Standard Messaging Engineering WebSphere MQ Service Owner 770-303-3503 (office) 404-915-3190 (cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mconnect.aero/ Potkay, Peter M (PLC, IT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]cc: RTFORD.COMSubject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs Sent by: MQSeries List [EMAIL PROTECTED] AC.AT 05/04/2004 11:17 AM Please respond to MQSeries List Have 1 QM on this server. Make it the default. Have all your apps code a blank QM on the MQCONN call, so they connect to the one and only QM. Name your queues by the app: WS.APP1.REQ WS.APP1.REPLY . . . . WS.APP99.REQ WS.APP99.REPLY Now you can run wild card security commands easily. And each app has its own set of queues. I assume this is one AIX box for PRODUCTION. You would have another AIX box for QA? And another for DEV? If yes, this allows you to repeat the above on each server. As you apps migrate from DEV to QA to PROD, there are ZERO coding changes required, and dozens (hundreds?) of apps can play nice on one QM in each environment. -Original Message- From: W Samuel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Thanks David, Peter for your replies. In our landscape we have around 6 to 7 queue managers running on separate Unix systems. Now, the plan is to move all these qmgrs to a single AIX server This has advantages of lower license costs. Our team;s task is to arrive at the specs for such a server. And the solution should be scalable to have more queue managers ... Any pointers as to how we go about this? Is this is a reasonable proposition ? Thanks WS --- David C. Partridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There probably is such a limit, and this will primarily be determined by disk space, and shared resources such as semaphores and open file limits and the like. However the return question I have is how many are you contemplating, and why do you want to host many QMs on the same box? Far better to have a few QMs with '000s of queues than many QMs with a few queues each. Dave -Original Message- From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of W Samuel Sent: 04 May 2004 14:52 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Max no. of qmgrs Hello, Is there a limit on the max number of queue managers that can run on a single host ? Regards WS Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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 Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly...Ping your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html 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 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
