|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
 |
|
CLWL |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
Author |
Message
|
olan022 |
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 5:50 am Post subject: CLWL |
|
|
 Acolyte
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 Posts: 50
|
Hello,
I appear to have an issue regarding MQ as it relates to routing priority. I am simply trying to have three identical cluster queues on which one is a priority as such that it would only be used in the event that the other two are not reachable. I am running on Solaris with MQ V6.0.2.0.
I have three cluster queues called Q1 (all three have priority 5) on three separate physical servers.
If I test send 3 messages from a remote server (not local to any of the three cluster queues), each of the three Q1 queues will receive one message using amqsput. Thus far we have confirmed that the basic connectivity and clustering is working as expected.
Change the priority of one of the Q1 queues to 4.
Sending messages now only go to the priority 5 queues in round robin fashion – that’s what we expect.
Now I break communication to the two priority 5 queues with the expectation that new messages would route to the remaining priority 4 queue.
This does not occur. Instead these messages go to the SYSTEM.CLUSTER.TRANSMIT.QUEUE waiting for the channels to open to the priority 5 queues, instead of attempting to use the available priority 4 queue.
I’ve looked at the manual and the CLWL algorithm and you could say this is by design, but what do I do if I am trying to design for network failures like this?
Thanks in advance. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Vitor |
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: Re: CLWL |
|
|
 Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
olan022 wrote: |
I’ve looked at the manual and the CLWL algorithm and you could say this is by design, but what do I do if I am trying to design for network failures like this?
|
Use HA software to ensure availability?
By "priority" I'm assuming from the context of your post you mean CLWLPRTY rather than message priority.
Given that, IMHO you should be setting NETPRTY, and much more savagely than you are; 9 on your primary channel & 0 on the others has been suggested in other posts. _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
olan022 |
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Acolyte
Joined: 17 Apr 2002 Posts: 50
|
That works. Thanks Vitor for your quick reply. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
sami.stormrage |
Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Disciple
Joined: 25 Jun 2008 Posts: 186 Location: Bangalore/Singapore
|
Try reclustering teh Q's .. sometimes the kernal thread go vary and would be shouthing " I wont let go *  _________________ *forgetting everything * |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|