| Author |
Message
|
| arifndc |
 Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:24 am Post subject: MQ clustering and architecture issue |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 24
|
I have an application (T24 application) deployed on WAS cluster. Application is communicating with T24 application Server through 2 MQ servers.
First layer: WAS cluster on which T24 application is deployed
Second Layer: 2 MQ Server (let’s say QM1 and QM2)
Third Layer: T24 application Server
Fourth: Database Server (not of our concern)
In the configuration of T24 application server I have defined the connection settings for both QM1 and QM2. Firstly Application makes connection QM1 and starts putting requests on QM1. If QM1 becomes down application makes connection will QM2 starts putting messages on QM2. T24 application server is listening on both QM1 and QM2, as the messages comes in the queue of any of the Queue Manager T24 application Server gets it, processes it and puts the response back.
Now problem is if some requests were holded by QM1, and QM1 becomes down then those messages are not available in QM2. I want to setup MQ clustering so that same messages should be available in QM2.
I don’t want any OS level clustering (for example HACMP) solution for this. I want some type to solution so that both QM1 and QM2 should have same data directory I means both QM1 and QM2 should be writing and reading on same location.
Export opinion for the overall architecture is also required that's why I have described the whole architecture in detail.
-
Arif |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:50 am Post subject: Re: MQ clustering and architecture issue |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| arifndc wrote: |
| ...Now problem is if some requests were holded by QM1, and QM1 becomes down then those messages are not available in QM2... |
So what did you expect?
| arifndc wrote: |
| ...I want to setup MQ clustering so that same messages should be available in QM2... |
Queue manager clustering is a load-balancing solution, not a message-duplication solution. What's more, if you do opt for a message duplication system, can the user applications deal with duplicates?
| arifndc wrote: |
| ...I don’t want any OS level clustering (for example HACMP) solution for this... |
So you want your cake, and to eat it?  Why not? What's the issue with that?
| arifndc wrote: |
| ...I want some type to solution so that both QM1 and QM2 should have same data directory I means both QM1 and QM2 should be writing and reading on same location... |
An almost-perfect description of Multi-Instance queue managers, except that you won't have two queue managers, you'll have just one. Of course, you'll need to be on V7.0.1 for that.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| arifndc |
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 24
|
| Quote: |
| Queue manager clustering is a load-balancing solution, not a message-duplication solution. What's more, if you do opt for a message duplication system, can the user applications deal with duplicates? |
| Quote: |
| An almost-perfect description of Multi-Instance queue managers, except that you won't have two queue managers, you'll have just one. Of course, you'll need to be on V7.0.1 for that. |
Actually I don’t want message duplications. By saying "messages of QM1 should be available in QM2" I mean that if QM1 becomes down then same messages (not its copy) should be forwarded by QM2. For example QM1 have 100 messages in the Queue when it down then these 100 messages will be got by T24application server from QM2. Though T24 application server is listening both QM1 and QM2 but messages should be forwarded by any one either QM1 or QM2. By this I will achieve high availability of messages for long transactions.
Can I achieve this by MQ V7.0.1 ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| arifndc wrote: |
| ...Actually I don’t want message duplications. By saying "messages of QM1 should be available in QM2" I mean that if QM1 becomes down then same messages (not its copy) should be forwarded by QM2... |
The only way you can have the 'same' (logical) message is to duplicate it, either with your own home-grown solution, pub/sub, or Third-Party offering - there is no way the 'same' message can exist in discrete queue managers otherwise.
| arifndc wrote: |
| ...For example QM1 have 100 messages in the Queue when it down then these 100 messages will be got by T24application server from QM2... |
So what are you going to do? chisel off the electrons from the disk platters? If QM1 is down, the messages within it are unavailable until it is restored to service - MQ101! 
| arifndc wrote: |
| ...Though T24 application server is listening both QM1 and QM2 but messages should be forwarded by any one either QM1 or QM2... |
Guess what? We're back to message duplication again...
| arifndc wrote: |
| By this I will achieve high availability of messages for long transactions... |
long running transactions = poor design + (bad karma x support nightmare) and when one of your application servers fails over to the other queue manager you think it's not going to roll-back because the UOW will change?
| arifndc wrote: |
| Can I achieve this by MQ V7.0.1 ??? |
If you want high-availability you have two options:
1. HACMP (or whatever is the equivalent on your platform) which is not WMQ version dependent, or
2. A Multi-Instance queue manager, which is dependent on WMQ version.
And, yet again, an M-I queue manager is a SINGLE queue manager, not a QM1 and QM2. So I'll ask the question again, what's the issue with high-availability in either of its forms?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
What you're really asking for is provided by WMQ for z/OS Parallel Sysplex, where an inbound message can be propogated to a Coupling Facility connected to many qmgrs. A message in the CF can be consumed by an application on any of the qmgr instances.
One for the mainframe.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
What you're really asking for is provided by WMQ for z/OS Parallel Sysplex, where an inbound message can be propogated to a Coupling Facility connected to many qmgrs. A message in the CF can be consumed by an application on any of the qmgr instances.
One for the mainframe. |
If arifndc's budget doesn't stretch to HACMP then I doubt they'll give him some big vending machines to play with
_________________
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 |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| If arifndc's budget doesn't stretch to HACMP then I doubt they'll give him some big vending machines to play with. |
Precisely.
I want to have my $99.00 Win/xp pro and sub-$1k brand L hardware behave as nicely as zHardware and z/OS, but my budget doesn't stretch that far either.
So, facing this simple reality, I lower my expectations.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If arifndc's budget doesn't stretch to HACMP then I doubt they'll give him some big vending machines to play with. |
Precisely.
I want to have my $99.00 Win/xp pro and sub-$1k brand L hardware behave as nicely as zHardware and z/OS, but my budget doesn't stretch that far either.
So, facing this simple reality, I lower my expectations. |
And every time I do that, somebody meets them 
_________________
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 |
|
|
| chintanshah78 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 15 Jul 2009
Posts: 1
|
I think you are talking about active-active HA which is not possible unless you use any third party HA Clustering Software like HACMP, Veritas or Lifekeeper.
I hope I am clear with it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| chintanshah78 wrote: |
I think you are talking about active-active HA which is not possible unless you use any third party HA Clustering Software like HACMP, Veritas or Lifekeeper.
I hope I am clear with it. |
And I hope next time you look at the date on the last posting and realise it is dormant
_________________
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 |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
There is no such thing as an Active / Active Queue Manager set up, even with the clustering software you mentioned.
There is Active / Passive, there is an overlapping pair of Active/Passive QMs (2 completely different and seperate QMs), but in no case do you have the same QM running on 2 or more servers processing the same messages.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
