Currently we have 800,000 transaction around 1K in size going
through a queue manager. We have a new project that will add
another 500,000 messages ranging from 10K to 2M with most
being in the 10K range.
I have been asked if another queue manager would make sense
to handle this new traffic. My first reaction, which I believe is the
correct action, is to use the single queue manager.
I know with radically different message sizes, using a second
channel can help by keeping the large messages from slowing
down the small messages but figure I better get some other
opinions on having a second queue manager.
The only way I would think it could be better would only work
if both queue managers had a separate set of dedicated
drives for their queues and logs. Otherwise the logging from
the two queue managers would be interfering with each other
and any performance gains would not be realized.
Then again, the additional overhead of running another
queue manager would also cut into any performance gains.
What, if any, are the reasons why you would want two queue
managers instead of a single queue manager?
Thanks everyone.
Jeff Tressler
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
