| Author |
Message
|
| alexl |
 Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:54 am Post subject: WMB/WMQ and Multi Instance storage NFS/GPFS constraint |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 3
|
Hi,
I'm working on creation of HA environment built on WMB 7. (Two servers/Nodes in the beginning)
My question is about the shared storage constraint it can be NFS v4 or GPFS only.
Does anyone designed/created HA (Active/Active) environment based on internal mi option with active/standby? (I want to achieve the Active/Active by cross definition of the MQ/WMB instances).
Which shared storage option you suggest? If NFS which HA solution better to define. I want Active/Active solution for NFS too.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Not directly answering your question (as I've no direct experience to offer) but I do know there have been a number of recent discussions on NFS / multi-instance that you might find useful & I recommend them to you.
Someone with more relevent comments will probably be along in a minute. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| My question is about the shared storage constraint it can be NFS v4 or GPFS only. |
If I remember correctly, only NFSv4 was mentioned in the multi-instance queue managers presentations. Both enable some degree of shared disk storage.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| markt |
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 508
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mvic |
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:00 am Post subject: Re: WMB/WMQ and Multi Instance storage NFS/GPFS constraint |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 2080
|
| alexl wrote: |
| Which shared storage option you suggest? If NFS which HA solution better to define. I want Active/Active solution for NFS too. |
Please say precisely what you mean by active/active in this scenario. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
This Webinar is tomorrow.
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/websphere/support/TE/techex_Q574466T75656D82.html
WebSphere Technical Exchange Webcast
WebSphere Message® Broker V7 introduces a new concept of the multi-instance brokers that help users configure their high availability environments. This session focuses on the list of items that customers have to follow to create and configure the multi-instance queue manager and brokers.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| alexl |
| Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 3
|
| Quote: |
| Please say precisely what you mean by active/active in this scenario. |
mvic I want the NFS servers to be clustered and HA, don't want to have single point of failure.
mqjeff what about the remark from the info center
| Quote: |
| The amqmfsck command applies only to UNIX and IBM® i systems. |
I will try to check this. Because really I find it annoying to put more parts in the architecture like the NFS, why can it use XIV/EMC shard storage solution. I will try to run the amqmfsck from RHAT 5.3 with XIV shared disk. will update.
Thank You. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| alexl wrote: |
mqjeff what about the remark from the info center
| Quote: |
| The amqmfsck command applies only to UNIX and IBM® i systems. |
I will try to check this. Because really I find it annoying to put more parts in the architecture like the NFS, why can it use XIV/EMC shard storage solution. I will try to run the amqmfsck from RHAT 5.3 with XIV shared disk. will update. |
RHAT 5.3 is a UNIX system.
The remark was very very clear, I thought. There's another statement that says you specifically don't need it on Windows, so this means that any network shared storage on Windows should be supported.
And of course, you'd never bother doing this on plain Z, you'd just use zed-normal HA mechanisms. You know, because they're better. And zed-Linux is still a Unix system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| alexl |
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Posts: 3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
I've always regarded a single mainframe to be as good (or better) than a HA/CMP AIX cluster anyway in reliability terms.
If you're super paranoid then parallel sysplex can be used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
