| Author |
Message
|
| RocknRambo |
 Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 355
|
The document shared in the thread outlines horizontal clustering, will it be any different for vertical clustering? is the multi-instance concept for Active-Active as well? or is it only for Active-Standby?
We are in our POT stage for WMB v7, trying to build WMB HA in one single machine.
Any high level steps would be appreciated.
Thanks
-RR |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| RocknRambo wrote: |
We are in our POT stage for WMB v7, trying to build WMB HA in one single machine.
Any high level steps would be appreciated.
Thanks
-RR |
Wouldn't that be counterproductive? I would have thought you'd need at least 2 machines for an HA solution... but then what do I know about HA? 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| RocknRambo wrote: |
We are in our POT stage for WMB v7, trying to build WMB HA in one single machine.
Any high level steps would be appreciated.
Thanks
-RR |
Wouldn't that be counterproductive? I would have thought you'd need at least 2 machines for an HA solution... but then what do I know about HA? |
Good point but as it is a POT, I'd probably do it using VM's on a single bit of Hardware. PErhaps this is what was meant.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RocknRambo |
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 355
|
Well, I agree in the concepts of HA we need atleast two machines to prove out the failover and availability.
Our intent of POT is figure out the tasks involved in creating MB Cluster or Multi instance MB. For WPS cluster, where we did use of one lab machine, created Dmgr and two Custom Nodes, documented the steps involved, similarly, can't we do it for MB/MQ ?
Am I missing anything ?
Thanks
-RR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RocknRambo |
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 355
|
Is the concept of the Multi Instance QM & Broker for Active-Standby (failover) ONLY ? or can we use build an active-active for load balancing as well ?
Any comments
Thanks
-RR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| RocknRambo wrote: |
| Is the concept of the Multi Instance QM & Broker for Active-Standby (failover) ONLY ? or can we use build an active-active for load balancing as well ? |
AFAIK it's for failover. Load balancing remains the province of the cluster.
But I don't know that far with v7 and would welcome comments. Especially from anyone with real life experience of this. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Broker v7 doesn't add any new Active-Active tools other than the existing Active-Active tools already available: i.e. additional instances, additional EGs and additional Brokers.
There's no new "HA coordinator" that will move deployments from one machine to another, or start and stop things on demand.
Maybe in Broker 8. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RocknRambo |
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 355
|
As there is no concept of broker domain and config mgr in MB7, what would involve in creating Broker Cluster upon MQ Cluster ?
Environment:
WMQ v701
WMB v7
I see we have the option of creating the MQ cluster in traditional way using MQ explorer. If there are two QM1 and QM2 in the cluster, can we broker broker instances MB1 associate with QM1 and MB2 associate with QM2,
(I'm sure, can't this easy :p) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| RocknRambo wrote: |
| Broker Cluster |
There's no such thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqmatt |
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Hursley, UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RocknRambo |
| Posted: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Sep 2003
Posts: 355
|
Broker Cluster - My intent HA (active-active) for Broker.
mqmatt: From the below 'Broker to run in multi-instance mode', can we achieve active-active brokers instances from configuration? or is it only failover (active-standby)
[This was my original question]
Thanks
-RR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqmatt |
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Hursley, UK
|
Jeff was completely correct (as usual).
Multi-instance brokers allow you to configure active/standby configurations. It works in the same way as multi-instance queue managers in v7.0.1, i.e. hosting the broker's configuration on shared network storage, and having one broker instance obtain a lock to that configuration which is released to the standby broker if the active broker fails.
To achieve an active/active configuration on separate physical machines, you need to configure completely separate brokers, and use clustering technology to abstract away the physical location of the machines from your applications (e.g. MQ clusters).
Regards
-Matt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Volvic |
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 30
|
Since one year passed since the last post I want to know more! 
Did someone take his time in holidays and built and maybe documented an active/active solution with multiple qm/broker instances? And maybe solved the virtual IP issue wandering from machine to machine?
Is there more info on this?
I mean something like machineA(qmA, qmB1, brokerA, brokerB1) with machineB(qmA1, qmB, brokerA1, brokerB). In this constellation qmA1 (brokerA1) and qmB1 (brokerB1) are standby instances. Of course there are still MQV6.0 client in the network so IP switching is a requirement as I said before.
_________________
Volvic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| broker-rob |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 28 Dec 2007
Posts: 5
Location: Hursley
|
Hi Volvic,
First off you have to be really careful with your terminology regarding multi-instance brokers/qm. Remember multi-instance means multiple instances of the SAME queue manager/broker so you don't have QMA and QMA1
You can create an ACTIVE/ACTIVE scenario using multi-instance brokers/qms. This would be setup similar to your description
Machine 1 - QMA & BRKA (Active), QMB & BRKB (Passive)
Machine 2 - QMA & BRKA (Passive), QMB & BRKB (Active)
QMA & QMB working in a cluster to provide load balancing.
Generally if you are looking at building Active/Active scenarios using a HA manager is more suitable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Volvic wrote: |
| Since one year passed since the last post I want to know more! |
It's been a year since last Xmas? And it's only February?
No wonder I've been feeling tired......
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
