| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Developer questions on MQ Brokers (WMQ 7.0) |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| kayoumt |
 Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: Developer questions on MQ Brokers (WMQ 7.0) |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 81
|
--- Developer questions ---
A couple of years ago, an IBM vendor told me that if I need to do something serious in terms of publish/subscribe I needed to purchase something very expensive called WMQ Message Broker or WMQ Event Broker.
This vendor did not convince me. Because he did not be able to expain me what is the advantage of what he is telling me over using RFH format with WMQ's base broker.
A couple years after, IBM seems to tell me that I was right. Since the 7.0 version of WMQ integrated the PUB/SUB broker in the queue manager.
I ask again (in that forum) the same kind of questions I asked a couple of years ago :
1) Is the broker integrated in WMQ 7.0 queue manager an engine serious enough for not having to purchase an separate message broker ? Or, how serious is it ?
2) In terms of programming, what is the serious way to do serious PUBLISH/SUBSCRIBE with MQ ? I did use RFH, but XMS seems to be more serious ? There are may be also other libraries or publish/subscribe formats ?
Thanks for any helpful answer ?
Note : By "serious" publish/subscribe programming, I mean creating or destroying dynamically Topics, doing dynamically Subscribes and Unsubscribes, creating and destroying dynamically Temporary or Permanent Queues (in C++ or C# application). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 12:48 pm Post subject: Re: Developer questions on MQ Brokers (WMQ 7.0) |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kayoumt wrote: |
| 1) Is the broker integrated in WMQ 7.0 queue manager an engine serious enough for not having to purchase an separate message broker ? Or, how serious is it ? |
The pub/sub broker included with v7 is better than the pub/sub broker in v6, which in turn was better than the pub/sub facility in v5. From a developer standpoint there's not too much to talk about; the theory always was you'd be able to migrate from WMQ to WMB pub/sub without much changes.
Where the difference has always been has been in the throughput and scaleability. It depends on what you mean by "serious" in the sense of workload & SLA, but WMB will out-perform the queue manager broker in most scenarios. You also have access to all the other facilities that WMB provides, which can make pub/sub a lot easier in many environments.
| kayoumt wrote: |
| 2) In terms of programming, what is the serious way to do serious PUBLISH/SUBSCRIBE with MQ ? I did use RFH, but XMS seems to be more serious ? There are may be also other libraries or publish/subscribe formats ? |
RFH & XMS are the same thing. The RFH is how the Websphere stack implements the JMS headers, the XMS libraries are provided to allow the easier manipulation of JMS in non-JMS environments.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kayoumt |
| Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 81
|
1) MQ broker vs WMB
WMQ PVU price is 69$ for Linux platform and WMB PVU price is 945$. If you see the difference between the two prices you cannot avoid asking yourself how useful ("serious") is the broker integrated in MQ. Th other fact is ; if you name "publish" and "subscribe" words to an IBM vendor, it will automatically try to sell you WMB. I already met IBM WMQ selling Architects who did not know that the V6 Base Broker exists.
In conclusion of that question. WMQ Architects need to have benchmarks (or kind-of) for deciding what kind of broker they need to purchase depending on throughput and scalability their application is dealing with.
2) RFH vs XMS
Thanks a lot for making me know that XMS is a wrapper of RFH low level pub/sub manipulations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kayoumt wrote: |
| WMQ PVU price is 69$ for Linux platform and WMB PVU price is 945$. If you see the difference between the two prices you cannot avoid asking yourself how useful ("serious") is the broker integrated in MQ. |
I repeat again that WMB is much, much more than a pub/sub product. The price differential reflects the additional features that WMB provides, like message transformation, multi-format parsing, etc, etc.
| kayoumt wrote: |
| Th other fact is ; if you name "publish" and "subscribe" words to an IBM vendor, it will automatically try to sell you WMB. I already met IBM WMQ selling Architects who did not know that the V6 Base Broker exists. |
I think it's fair to say that the WMQ pub/sub broker has been seen as the poor relation to WMB, which supported pub/sub from day 1.
| kayoumt wrote: |
| In conclusion of that question. WMQ Architects need to have benchmarks (or kind-of) for deciding what kind of broker they need to purchase depending on throughput and scalability their application is dealing with. |
IMHO, using WMB or not is an enterprise decision. No application or applications should know or care what platform or pub/sub provider they're running on. My experience is that you either need WMB or you don't for other reasons and run the pub/sub on it if you've got it. There are a number of IBM publications showing the sort of figures you're talking about.
Once more, other views equally valid.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
The engine for doing straight Pub/Sub in MQ v6 and earlier did not benchmark as well as the engine in MB v6.x and earlier.
The engine for doing straight Pub/Sub in MQ v7 is entirely new, and is the strategic direction for Pub/Sub in both MQ and MB.
MB provides additional content-based filtering on top of Pub/Sub. If you do not need that, and do not require any of the other features of MB - and you may be surprised to find that you do in fact require those! - you should not buy MB.
MQ pub/sub only does what MQ does, which is make messages available across a distributed queue based network. That's it. If your pub/sub requirements have any other features in them, then you need MB. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kayoumt |
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 81
|
Thanks for all answers,
If you see any serious publication on WMQ 7 Broker and WMB comparison (in terms of publish/subscribe), please post it to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| The engine for doing straight Pub/Sub in MQ v7 is entirely new, and is the strategic direction for Pub/Sub in both MQ and MB. |
It sure is. Native pub/sub is the biggest new feature added to MQ for a long time and you should have no doubts about using it seriously. Down the track, MQ pub/sub may become more prevelant that MQ point-to-point messaging.
_________________
Glenn |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
