Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List
I
didn't mean to insinuate anything about other peoples' systems. I was just
relating what my experience has been with my company's particular MQ setup and
my experiences with it. Idamar really didn't state what sort of
environment he was dealing with, so I thought a little perspective
would help.
-Chris
-Original Message-From: Michael F
Murphy/AZ/US/MQSolutions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent:
Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:45 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ
ListSounds like you are
saying the rest of us are all incompetent! Also you are talking about 5
machines and I am talking about hundreds where a little problem can grow
exponentially. Whether clustering works depends on many factors.
In my experience, the stability of the network is the biggest factor.
If you have lots of burps in your network, which is pretty much normal
in a large enterprise with lots of routers and firewall rules, you have lots
of problems with clustering. In a stable environment, clustering does
work well. I have implemented it in test environments with 0 problems
but then went to production and started having problems a few weeks after
implementation. Once problems start, it is hard to get rid of them.
It has nothing to do with "administrative misadventure" unless you
clearly break the rules. Clustering is something you should not attempt
without reading the manual. If you have a good environment, follow all
the rules, you can have great success with clustering. It is a good deal
but you have to weigh the advantages against the problems.Mike MurphySr. Middleware
ConsultantMQ Solutions,
LLChttp://www.mqsolutions.com"Hill, Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Date
Recieved:
11/05/2002 01:52:29 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Bcc
Subject:
Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ
List"started with
administrative misadventure" What kind of
administrative misadventure? -Original Message-From: Smith, Christopher N. (MDCH)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:39
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster
or MQ ListWell, my only
experience with MQ is in a clustered environment. I think that clusters
are pretty handy for our particular setup. We use MQ as a transport for
moderately large (1 to 4 megabytes) batches of transactions between 5
different systems and our customer. Clustering allows for easy set and
configuration of the servers. I will agree that troubleshooting
sometimes can be a pain in the...err...a problem. However, most of the
troubles I have seen started with administrative misadventure and not from MQ
Clustering itself. -Chris
--- Christopher SmithLogicaLead
OperatorEnergy &
Utilities617-476-8139[EMAIL PROTECTED]North
America
-Original Message-From: Michael
F Murphy/AZ/US/MQSolutions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent:
Monday, November 04, 2002 9:34 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ
ListYou are comparing MQ
Cluster and MQ List? Do you mean distribution list? Clustering and
distribution lists are not related. A distribution list puts the same
message to more than one queue. In a cluster you only put one message to
one queue. In a cluster you can have a queue on more than one queue
manager by the same name within a cluster. When you do a put, it will
only put the message to one of the queues in the cluster. When you open
the cluster queue, it will either open one of them in the cluster and put all
messages with that object handle to one queue, or it can put the message to
all queues in a round-robin fashion, depending on the option chosen in your
open options. Now that's out of the way. The main advantage to clustering is job security
because it can be very high maintenance. So if you need to create work
for yourself, add clustering. Not everyone has had a bad experience with
clustering, but I think everyone will agree it is sometimes difficult to
maintain and troubleshoot. With every release, IBM says clustering was
bad in the previous release but now it is better. I have not had the
chance to test it in 5.3 yet though. Clustering gives you a cheap way to
balance your workload across queue managers (probably across machines) so you
can scale your application. I say it is the cheap way because it is not
balanced, it is round-robin. If you have a complex network with many to
many connections, clustering can reduce the number of channel definitions.
This is because it creates channels as needed automagically. I
have used clustering for this purpose before. If a queue manager becomes
unavailable, it routes all mes
RES: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List
Mike, Very good. But what You want to say in "Also, it doesn't react to the queue manager's availability very well and sometimes messages get stuck"? That was the unique cloudy part to me. Gracias Señor Idamar Ferreira Especialista - GEROP - CAIXA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ((61)414-4935 “Take care of your People, They are the unique unrecoverable piece of your business” -Mensagem original-De: Smith, Christopher N. (MDCH) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Enviada em: terça-feira, 5 de novembro de 2002 18:39Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Assunto: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List Well, my only experience with MQ is in a clustered environment. I think that clusters are pretty handy for our particular setup. We use MQ as a transport for moderately large (1 to 4 megabytes) batches of transactions between 5 different systems and our customer. Clustering allows for easy set and configuration of the servers. I will agree that troubleshooting sometimes can be a pain in the...err...a problem. However, most of the troubles I have seen started with administrative misadventure and not from MQ Clustering itself. -Chris --- Christopher SmithLogicaLead OperatorEnergy & Utilities617-476-8139[EMAIL PROTECTED]North America -Original Message-From: Michael F Murphy/AZ/US/MQSolutions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:34 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ ListYou are comparing MQ Cluster and MQ List? Do you mean distribution list? Clustering and distribution lists are not related. A distribution list puts the same message to more than one queue. In a cluster you only put one message to one queue. In a cluster you can have a queue on more than one queue manager by the same name within a cluster. When you do a put, it will only put the message to one of the queues in the cluster. When you open the cluster queue, it will either open one of them in the cluster and put all messages with that object handle to one queue, or it can put the message to all queues in a round-robin fashion, depending on the option chosen in your open options. Now that's out of the way. The main advantage to clustering is job security because it can be very high maintenance. So if you need to create work for yourself, add clustering. Not everyone has had a bad experience with clustering, but I think everyone will agree it is sometimes difficult to maintain and troubleshoot. With every release, IBM says clustering was bad in the previous release but now it is better. I have not had the chance to test it in 5.3 yet though. Clustering gives you a cheap way to balance your workload across queue managers (probably across machines) so you can scale your application. I say it is the cheap way because it is not balanced, it is round-robin. If you have a complex network with many to many connections, clustering can reduce the number of channel definitions. This is because it creates channels as needed automagically. I have used clustering for this purpose before. If a queue manager becomes unavailable, it routes all messages to the remaining available queue managers. This is cheap availability but not good for HA because messages will get stuck on the failed queue manager. Also, it doesn't react to the queue manager's availability very well and sometimes messages get stuck. You should carefully evaluate if clustering is right for your architecture. Do not use it just because it is cool or because some IT director thinks it will solve all your problems. The main advantages are: - Spread workload across queue managers - Provides a cheap, but unreliable psuedo-failover solution - An application can easily put a message on a queue on another queue manager without altering the queue manager - Can be more or less administration depending on your luck What about distribution lists? They are good if you want to send the same message to many queues on many queue managers. With this, you can put the message once rather than 20 times. It is a useful feature. If you need to send the same message to many places also consider pub/sub if that meets your needs.Mike MurphySr. Middleware Consultanthttp://www.mqsolutions.comOffice: 562-902-7800Cell: 602-741-6689 Idamar Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date Recieved: 11/04/2002 11:49:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Bcc Subject: Why MQ Cluster or MQ ListHi all, Does someone know what I take advantage using a MQ Cluster? Why do I have to use MQ Cluster? Would I consider use MQ List? Please don't consider the benefict
Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List
Sounds like you are saying the rest of us are all incompetent! Also you are talking about 5 machines and I am talking about hundreds where a little problem can grow exponentially. Whether clustering works depends on many factors. In my experience, the stability of the network is the biggest factor. If you have lots of burps in your network, which is pretty much normal in a large enterprise with lots of routers and firewall rules, you have lots of problems with clustering. In a stable environment, clustering does work well. I have implemented it in test environments with 0 problems but then went to production and started having problems a few weeks after implementation. Once problems start, it is hard to get rid of them. It has nothing to do with "administrative misadventure" unless you clearly break the rules. Clustering is something you should not attempt without reading the manual. If you have a good environment, follow all the rules, you can have great success with clustering. It is a good deal but you have to weigh the advantages against the problems. Mike Murphy Sr. Middleware Consultant MQ Solutions, LLC http://www.mqsolutions.com "Hill, Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date Recieved: 11/05/2002 01:52:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Bcc Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List "started with administrative misadventure" What kind of administrative misadventure? -Original Message- From: Smith, Christopher N. (MDCH) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List Well, my only experience with MQ is in a clustered environment. I think that clusters are pretty handy for our particular setup. We use MQ as a transport for moderately large (1 to 4 megabytes) batches of transactions between 5 different systems and our customer. Clustering allows for easy set and configuration of the servers. I will agree that troubleshooting sometimes can be a pain in the...err...a problem. However, most of the troubles I have seen started with administrative misadventure and not from MQ Clustering itself. -Chris --- Christopher Smith Logica Lead Operator Energy & Utilities 617-476-8139 [EMAIL PROTECTED] North America -Original Message- From: Michael F Murphy/AZ/US/MQSolutions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List You are comparing MQ Cluster and MQ List? Do you mean distribution list? Clustering and distribution lists are not related. A distribution list puts the same message to more than one queue. In a cluster you only put one message to one queue. In a cluster you can have a queue on more than one queue manager by the same name within a cluster. When you do a put, it will only put the message to one of the queues in the cluster. When you open the cluster queue, it will either open one of them in the cluster and put all messages with that object handle to one queue, or it can put the message to all queues in a round-robin fashion, depending on the option chosen in your open options. Now that's out of the way. The main advantage to clustering is job security because it can be very high maintenance. So if you need to create work for yourself, add clustering. Not everyone has had a bad experience with clustering, but I think everyone will agree it is sometimes difficult to maintain and troubleshoot. With every release, IBM says clustering was bad in the previous release but now it is better. I have not had the chance to test it in 5.3 yet though. Clustering gives you a cheap way to balance your workload across queue managers (probably across machines) so you can scale your application. I say it is the cheap way because it is not balanced, it is round-robin. If you have a complex network with many to many connections, clustering can reduce the number of channel definitions. This is because it creates channels as needed automagically. I have used clustering for this purpose before. If a queue manager becomes unavailable, it routes all messages to the remaining available queue managers. This is cheap availability but not good for HA because messages will get stuck on the failed queue manager. Also, it doesn't react to the queue manager's availability very well and sometimes messages get stuck. You should carefully evaluate if clustering is right for your architecture. Do not use it just because it is cool or because some IT director thinks it will solve all your problems. The main advantages are: - Spread workload across queue managers - Provides a cheap, but unreliable psuedo-failover solution - An application can easily put a message on a queue on another queue manager without altering the queue manager - Can be more or less administration depending on your luck What about distribution lists? They are good
Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List
"started with administrative misadventure" What kind of administrative misadventure? -Original Message-From: Smith, Christopher N. (MDCH) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2002 3:39 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List Well, my only experience with MQ is in a clustered environment. I think that clusters are pretty handy for our particular setup. We use MQ as a transport for moderately large (1 to 4 megabytes) batches of transactions between 5 different systems and our customer. Clustering allows for easy set and configuration of the servers. I will agree that troubleshooting sometimes can be a pain in the...err...a problem. However, most of the troubles I have seen started with administrative misadventure and not from MQ Clustering itself. -Chris --- Christopher SmithLogicaLead OperatorEnergy & Utilities617-476-8139[EMAIL PROTECTED]North America -Original Message-From: Michael F Murphy/AZ/US/MQSolutions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:34 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ ListYou are comparing MQ Cluster and MQ List? Do you mean distribution list? Clustering and distribution lists are not related. A distribution list puts the same message to more than one queue. In a cluster you only put one message to one queue. In a cluster you can have a queue on more than one queue manager by the same name within a cluster. When you do a put, it will only put the message to one of the queues in the cluster. When you open the cluster queue, it will either open one of them in the cluster and put all messages with that object handle to one queue, or it can put the message to all queues in a round-robin fashion, depending on the option chosen in your open options. Now that's out of the way. The main advantage to clustering is job security because it can be very high maintenance. So if you need to create work for yourself, add clustering. Not everyone has had a bad experience with clustering, but I think everyone will agree it is sometimes difficult to maintain and troubleshoot. With every release, IBM says clustering was bad in the previous release but now it is better. I have not had the chance to test it in 5.3 yet though. Clustering gives you a cheap way to balance your workload across queue managers (probably across machines) so you can scale your application. I say it is the cheap way because it is not balanced, it is round-robin. If you have a complex network with many to many connections, clustering can reduce the number of channel definitions. This is because it creates channels as needed automagically. I have used clustering for this purpose before. If a queue manager becomes unavailable, it routes all messages to the remaining available queue managers. This is cheap availability but not good for HA because messages will get stuck on the failed queue manager. Also, it doesn't react to the queue manager's availability very well and sometimes messages get stuck. You should carefully evaluate if clustering is right for your architecture. Do not use it just because it is cool or because some IT director thinks it will solve all your problems. The main advantages are: - Spread workload across queue managers - Provides a cheap, but unreliable psuedo-failover solution - An application can easily put a message on a queue on another queue manager without altering the queue manager - Can be more or less administration depending on your luck What about distribution lists? They are good if you want to send the same message to many queues on many queue managers. With this, you can put the message once rather than 20 times. It is a useful feature. If you need to send the same message to many places also consider pub/sub if that meets your needs.Mike MurphySr. Middleware Consultanthttp://www.mqsolutions.comOffice: 562-902-7800Cell: 602-741-6689 Idamar Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date Recieved: 11/04/2002 11:49:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Bcc Subject: Why MQ Cluster or MQ ListHi all, Does someone know what I take advantage using a MQ Cluster? Why do I have to use MQ Cluster? Would I consider use MQ List? Please don't consider the beneficts for administration. TIA Idamar Ferreira Especialista - GEROP - CAIXA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ((61
Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List
Well, my only experience with MQ is in a clustered environment. I think that clusters are pretty handy for our particular setup. We use MQ as a transport for moderately large (1 to 4 megabytes) batches of transactions between 5 different systems and our customer. Clustering allows for easy set and configuration of the servers. I will agree that troubleshooting sometimes can be a pain in the...err...a problem. However, most of the troubles I have seen started with administrative misadventure and not from MQ Clustering itself. -Chris --- Christopher SmithLogicaLead OperatorEnergy & Utilities617-476-8139[EMAIL PROTECTED]North America -Original Message-From: Michael F Murphy/AZ/US/MQSolutions [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 9:34 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ ListYou are comparing MQ Cluster and MQ List? Do you mean distribution list? Clustering and distribution lists are not related. A distribution list puts the same message to more than one queue. In a cluster you only put one message to one queue. In a cluster you can have a queue on more than one queue manager by the same name within a cluster. When you do a put, it will only put the message to one of the queues in the cluster. When you open the cluster queue, it will either open one of them in the cluster and put all messages with that object handle to one queue, or it can put the message to all queues in a round-robin fashion, depending on the option chosen in your open options. Now that's out of the way. The main advantage to clustering is job security because it can be very high maintenance. So if you need to create work for yourself, add clustering. Not everyone has had a bad experience with clustering, but I think everyone will agree it is sometimes difficult to maintain and troubleshoot. With every release, IBM says clustering was bad in the previous release but now it is better. I have not had the chance to test it in 5.3 yet though. Clustering gives you a cheap way to balance your workload across queue managers (probably across machines) so you can scale your application. I say it is the cheap way because it is not balanced, it is round-robin. If you have a complex network with many to many connections, clustering can reduce the number of channel definitions. This is because it creates channels as needed automagically. I have used clustering for this purpose before. If a queue manager becomes unavailable, it routes all messages to the remaining available queue managers. This is cheap availability but not good for HA because messages will get stuck on the failed queue manager. Also, it doesn't react to the queue manager's availability very well and sometimes messages get stuck. You should carefully evaluate if clustering is right for your architecture. Do not use it just because it is cool or because some IT director thinks it will solve all your problems. The main advantages are: - Spread workload across queue managers - Provides a cheap, but unreliable psuedo-failover solution - An application can easily put a message on a queue on another queue manager without altering the queue manager - Can be more or less administration depending on your luck What about distribution lists? They are good if you want to send the same message to many queues on many queue managers. With this, you can put the message once rather than 20 times. It is a useful feature. If you need to send the same message to many places also consider pub/sub if that meets your needs.Mike MurphySr. Middleware Consultanthttp://www.mqsolutions.comOffice: 562-902-7800Cell: 602-741-6689 Idamar Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date Recieved: 11/04/2002 11:49:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Bcc Subject: Why MQ Cluster or MQ ListHi all, Does someone know what I take advantage using a MQ Cluster? Why do I have to use MQ Cluster? Would I consider use MQ List? Please don't consider the beneficts for administration. TIA Idamar Ferreira Especialista - GEROP - CAIXA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ((61)414-4935 "Take care of your People, They are the unique unrecoverable piece of your business" . This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List
I don't have much experience with queue sharing because of my limited access (none right now) to OS/390. I do know of people using is successfully. Mike Murphy Sr. Middleware Consultant MQ Solutions, LLC http://www.mqsolutions.com Geok Hoon FOO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date Recieved: 11/04/2002 11:10:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Bcc Subject: Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List any comments on MQ queue sharing. - Forwarded by Geok Hoon FOO/ISD/HDB/SG on 05/11/2002 02:04 PM - Your Ref TEL Our (Embedded image moved to Ref file: pic12543.pcx) FAX Categories Email Classification : Michael F Murphy/AZ/US/MQSol To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] utions cc: NS.COM> Sent by: MQSeries List .AC.AT> 05/11/2002 10:34 AM Please respond to MQSeries List You are comparing MQ Cluster and MQ List? Do you mean distribution list? Clustering and distribution lists are not related. A distribution list puts the same message to more than one queue. In a cluster you only put one message to one queue. In a cluster you can have a queue on more than one queue manager by the same name within a cluster. When you do a put, it will only put the message to one of the queues in the cluster. When you open the cluster queue, it will either open one of them in the cluster and put all messages with that object handle to one queue, or it can put the message to all queues in a round-robin fashion, depending on the option chosen in your open options. Now that's out of the way. The main advantage to clustering is job security because it can be very high maintenance. So if you need to create work for yourself, add clustering. Not everyone has had a bad experience with clustering, but I think everyone will agree it is sometimes difficult to maintain and troubleshoot. With every release, IBM says clustering was bad in the previous release but now it is better. I have not had the chance to test it in 5.3 yet though. Clustering gives you a cheap way to balance your workload across queue managers (probably across machines) so you can scale your application. I say it is the cheap way because it is not balanced, it is round-robin. If you have a complex network with many to many connections, clustering can reduce the number of channel definitions. This is because it creates channels as needed automagically. I have used clustering for this purpose before. If a queue manager becomes unavailable, it routes all messages to the remaining available queue managers. This is cheap availability but not good for HA because messages will get stuck on the failed queue manager. Also, it doesn't react to the queue manager's availability very well and sometimes messages get stuck. You should carefully evaluate if clustering is right for your architecture. Do not use it just because it is cool or because some IT director thinks it will solve all your problems. The main advantages are: - Spread workload across queue managers - Provides a cheap, but unreliable psuedo-failover solution - An application can easily put a message on a queue on another queue manager without altering the queue manager - Can be more or less administration depending on your luck What about distribution lists? They are good if you want to send the same message to many queues on many queue managers. With this, you can put the message once rather than 20 times. It is a useful feature. If you need to send the same message to many places also consider pub/sub if that meets your needs. Mike Murphy Sr. Middleware Consultant (Embedded image moved to file: pic09225.jpg)(Embedded image moved to file: pic10966.jpg) http://www.mqsolutions.com Idamar Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date 11/04/2002 11:49:39 AM Recieved: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Bcc Subject: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List Hi all, Does someone know what I take advantage using a MQ Cluster? Why do I have to use MQ Cluster? Would I consider use MQ List? Please don't consider the beneficts for administration. TIA Idamar Ferreira Especialista - GEROP - CAIXA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ((61)414-4935 "Take care of your People, They are the unique unrecoverable piece of your business" .
Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List
any comments on MQ queue sharing.
- Forwarded by Geok Hoon FOO/ISD/HDB/SG on 05/11/2002 02:04 PM -
Your
Ref TEL
Our(Embedded image moved to
Ref file: pic12543.pcx) FAX
Categories
Email
Classification :
Michael F
Murphy/AZ/US/MQSol To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
utions cc:
Sent by: MQSeries
List
05/11/2002 10:34
AM
Please respond to
MQSeries List
You are comparing MQ Cluster and MQ List? Do you mean distribution list?
Clustering and distribution lists are not related. A distribution list
puts the same message to more than one queue. In a cluster you only put
one message to one queue. In a cluster you can have a queue on more than
one queue manager by the same name within a cluster. When you do a put, it
will only put the message to one of the queues in the cluster. When you
open the cluster queue, it will either open one of them in the cluster and
put all messages with that object handle to one queue, or it can put the
message to all queues in a round-robin fashion, depending on the option
chosen in your open options.
Now that's out of the way.
The main advantage to clustering is job security because it can be very
high maintenance. So if you need to create work for yourself, add
clustering. Not everyone has had a bad experience with clustering, but I
think everyone will agree it is sometimes difficult to maintain and
troubleshoot. With every release, IBM says clustering was bad in the
previous release but now it is better. I have not had the chance to test
it in 5.3 yet though. Clustering gives you a cheap way to balance your
workload across queue managers (probably across machines) so you can scale
your application. I say it is the cheap way because it is not balanced, it
is round-robin. If you have a complex network with many to many
connections, clustering can reduce the number of channel definitions. This
is because it creates channels as needed automagically. I have used
clustering for this purpose before. If a queue manager becomes
unavailable, it routes all messages to the remaining available queue
managers. This is cheap availability but not good for HA because messages
will get stuck on the failed queue manager. Also, it doesn't react to the
queue manager's availability very well and sometimes messages get stuck.
You should carefully evaluate if clustering is right for your architecture.
Do not use it just because it is cool or because some IT director thinks it
will solve all your problems. The main advantages are:
- Spread workload across queue managers
- Provides a cheap, but unreliable psuedo-failover solution
- An application can easily put a message on a queue on another queue
manager without altering the queue manager
- Can be more or less administration depending on your luck
What about distribution lists? They are good if you want to send the same
message to many queues on many queue managers. With this, you can put the
message once rather than 20 times. It is a useful feature. If you need to
send the same message to many places also consider pub/sub if that meets
your needs.
Mike Murphy
Sr. Middleware Consultant
(Embedded image moved to file: pic09225.jpg)(Embedded image moved to file:
pic10966.jpg)
http://www.mqsolutions.com
Office: 562-902-7800
Cell: 602-741-6689
Idamar Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date 11/04/2002 11:49:39 AM
Recieved:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Bcc
Subject: Why MQ Cluster or MQ
List
Hi all,
Does someone know what I take advantage using a MQ Cluster?
Why do I have to use MQ Cluster?
Would I consider use MQ List?
Please don't consider the beneficts for administration.
TIA
Idamar Ferreira
Especialista - GEROP - CAIXA
mailto:idamar.ferreira@;caixa.gov.br
((61)414-4935
"Take care of your People, They are the unique unrecoverable piece of your
business"
.
Warning : Privileged/confidential information may be contained in this
message. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not copy,
distribute or take any action in reliance thereon. Communication of any
information in this email to any unauthorised person is an offence under
the Official Secrets Act (Cap 213). If you receive this message in error,
please notify the se
Re: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List
You are comparing MQ Cluster and MQ List? Do you mean distribution list? Clustering and distribution lists are not related. A distribution list puts the same message to more than one queue. In a cluster you only put one message to one queue. In a cluster you can have a queue on more than one queue manager by the same name within a cluster. When you do a put, it will only put the message to one of the queues in the cluster. When you open the cluster queue, it will either open one of them in the cluster and put all messages with that object handle to one queue, or it can put the message to all queues in a round-robin fashion, depending on the option chosen in your open options. Now that's out of the way. The main advantage to clustering is job security because it can be very high maintenance. So if you need to create work for yourself, add clustering. Not everyone has had a bad experience with clustering, but I think everyone will agree it is sometimes difficult to maintain and troubleshoot. With every release, IBM says clustering was bad in the previous release but now it is better. I have not had the chance to test it in 5.3 yet though. Clustering gives you a cheap way to balance your workload across queue managers (probably across machines) so you can scale your application. I say it is the cheap way because it is not balanced, it is round-robin. If you have a complex network with many to many connections, clustering can reduce the number of channel definitions. This is because it creates channels as needed automagically. I have used clustering for this purpose before. If a queue manager becomes unavailable, it routes all messages to the remaining available queue managers. This is cheap availability but not good for HA because messages will get stuck on the failed queue manager. Also, it doesn't react to the queue manager's availability very well and sometimes messages get stuck. You should carefully evaluate if clustering is right for your architecture. Do not use it just because it is cool or because some IT director thinks it will solve all your problems. The main advantages are: - Spread workload across queue managers - Provides a cheap, but unreliable psuedo-failover solution - An application can easily put a message on a queue on another queue manager without altering the queue manager - Can be more or less administration depending on your luck What about distribution lists? They are good if you want to send the same message to many queues on many queue managers. With this, you can put the message once rather than 20 times. It is a useful feature. If you need to send the same message to many places also consider pub/sub if that meets your needs. Mike Murphy Sr. Middleware Consultant http://www.mqsolutions.com Office: 562-902-7800 Cell: 602-741-6689 Idamar Ferreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Date Recieved: 11/04/2002 11:49:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Bcc Subject: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List Hi all, Does someone know what I take advantage using a MQ Cluster? Why do I have to use MQ Cluster? Would I consider use MQ List? Please don't consider the beneficts for administration. TIA Idamar Ferreira Especialista - GEROP - CAIXA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ((61)414-4935 "Take care of your People, They are the unique unrecoverable piece of your business" .
Why MQ Cluster or MQ List
Title: Why MQ Cluster or MQ List Hi all, Does someone know what I take advantage using a MQ Cluster? Why do I have to use MQ Cluster? Would I consider use MQ List? Please don't consider the beneficts for administration. TIA Idamar Ferreira Especialista - GEROP - CAIXA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ((61)414-4935 "Take care of your People, They are the unique unrecoverable piece of your business" .
