| Author |
Message
|
| solomon_13000 |
 Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 284
|
| The main information I captured from my reading is higher availability. This is achieved by means of storing the queue manager log and data files on an external hard disk. So let's say I have a primary machine and a secondary machine. Both machine have the same queue manager sharing the same log and data files. If the queue manager in the primary machine fails then the queue manager in the secondary machine will take over. This would mean that the messages on the queue will still be accessible and not stranded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| solomon_13000 wrote: |
| ...If the queue manager in the primary machine fails then the queue manager in the secondary machine will take over... |
There is NO queue manager in the secondary machine, this misconception has been thrashed to death on this site many times, it is the SAME queue manager that can be started on one or the other physical servers, but NOT concurrently. Once the queue manager is restarted on the secondary machine the messages will indeed be available.
And no, it is not like RAID - there is no striping/mirroring/parity writes - although the volume groups may be on RAID disks, depending on site standards.
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| solomon_13000 |
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 284
|
| Meaning that the queue manager still resides on the primary machine and we are just starting an instance of the queue manager in the primary machine from the secondary machine?. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| solomon_13000 wrote: |
| Meaning that the queue manager still resides on the primary machine and we are just starting an instance of the queue manager in the primary machine from the secondary machine? |
No...meaning that the file system(s) that constitutes a queue manager. e.g. data and logs, will be mounted on one server OR the other.
It's easy to be confused because if you run dspmq on both servers, the queue manager will show as running on one, but ended on the other; it is this that tends to give the impression that there is a mirror copy queue manager.
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| solomon_13000 |
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 13 Jun 2008
Posts: 284
|
| Quote: |
| No...meaning that the file system(s) that constitutes a queue manager. e.g. data and logs, will be mounted on one server OR the other. |
Meaning that the queue manager log and data files residing on an external storage will be mounted on the primary or standby server. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| solomon_13000 wrote: |
| Meaning that the queue manager log and data files residing on an external storage will be mounted on the primary or standby server. |
Correct 
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
