| Author |
Message
|
| mqnomad |
 Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:42 am Post subject: MQ V7.0 HA - is it, or not a replacement for tradit. HA |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 53
|
After reviewing some V7 presentations I'm not 100% clear on the"Basic Multi Instance Failover".
It shows that although redundant, you can still use some of the MC91 scripts. IP address is not taken over.
MQ Clients, however, are shown reconnecting to the stand by instance if MQ1 fails.
For large mission critical accounts, can the multi-instance queue managers replace the existing HA capaiblities?
If yes/no, please explain the parts I am missing - this will be for Linux
thanks- mqnomad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqnomad |
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:43 am Post subject: add other q. |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 53
|
| Other question - how will this work for an MQ Cluster? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:13 am Post subject: Re: MQ V7.0 HA - is it, or not a replacement for tradit. HA |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqnomad wrote: |
| MQ Clients, however, are shown reconnecting to the stand by instance if MQ1 fails. |
This is another new feature of v7 - auto reconnect for clients.
| mqnomad wrote: |
| For large mission critical accounts, can the multi-instance queue managers replace the existing HA capaiblities? |
It can. If it's that mission critical the Powers That Be might prefer something with more of a track record. Also if it's not just WMQ that needs to be HA, but you have WAS, an application, a database and so forth your setup might be simplifies by having the whole lot under a single piece of HA software.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:13 am Post subject: Re: add other q. |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqnomad wrote: |
| Other question - how will this work for an MQ Cluster? |
In the same way it works if the multi-instance queue manager isn't part of a cluster. The concepts are unconnected.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
I, too, have found the documentation for MQ 7 multi-instance as a "replacement" for traditional HA to be less than clear.
FWIW, I believe that third party software (such as Veritas) must be implemented if you need the IP to failover. Our old applications wouldn't know a client channel table if it jumped up off the server and said "boo". So an IP takeover is essential for us.
Beyond that, I think you are supposed to be able to use multi-instance on top of third party HA clustering software, without using MC91. How exactly that works remains a bit mysterious for us.
But since MC91 is a prerequisite for IC91 for WMB, it's a moot point. We figure we needn't reinvent a process which support packs will handle for us.
I am prepared to be corrected on all this. We will not start building out our HA cluster for several more months, so all we've done so far is read. Real world stories from others would be welcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| SAFraser wrote: |
| FWIW, I believe that third party software (such as Veritas) must be implemented if you need the IP to failover. |
I also believe that to be the case, but am likewise ready to be corrected.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqnomad |
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 53
|
| Quote: |
If it's that mission critical the Powers That Be might prefer something with more of a track record
|
Yes, I hear this part - does anyone know how much V7.0 is out there now? ... by the MQ V6.0 EOS date - Sept 2011? ...
- do you think V7.0 will have established somewhat of a track record?
[I know, hard to tell for sure, just opinions]
- in the meantime, should not organizations that need to make a few changes to their infrastrucure not be readily testing V7.0 so they can migrate?
I see lots of extended support agreements ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
I think there is plenty of v7 deployed. But I am not sure there is a lot of it using multi-instance queue managers as the sole HA solution.
Everything we are building now is v7, and has been for some months. We haven't built all the way to production yet, but we are working towards it steadily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 10:50 am Post subject: Re: add other q. |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| mqnomad wrote: |
| Other question - how will this work for an MQ Cluster? |
In the same way it works if the multi-instance queue manager isn't part of a cluster. The concepts are unconnected. |
To add to Vitor's statement, there is the following consideration:
If it is 'vanilla' Multi-Instance, i.e. each server on a discrete IP Address (the concept of an MI queue manager under a Virtual IP makes my eyes go crossed) then as far as I am aware, ALL connecting queue manager infrastructure has to be at the same level, as you cannot chain the CONNAME's below V7.0.1.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqnomad |
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 18 Mar 2010
Posts: 53
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqnomad wrote: |
| Yes, I hear this part - does anyone know how much V7.0 is out there now? ... by the MQ V6.0 EOS date - Sept 2011? ... |
Given that I'm supporting clients who are still happy as clams running v5.3 possibly less than you might think.
| mqnomad wrote: |
| - do you think V7.0 will have established somewhat of a track record? |
What I was getting at is that the multi-instance feature is new for v7. Hence Veritas has been doing HA much longer than WMQ has been attempting it. My comment has nothing to do with the "track record" of v7 over v6 in terms of core messaging functionality.
| mqnomad wrote: |
| in the meantime, should not organizations that need to make a few changes to their infrastrucure not be readily testing V7.0 so they can migrate? |
They should but I bet many are not. See above re my comments on organizations still running v5.3. It all depends on the individual organisation's policy on adoption & risk.
| mqnomad wrote: |
| I see lots of extended support agreements ... |
Again, less than you might think. Many of the v5.3 clients I have don't have these & just accept that if v5.3 goes over IBM won't help aside from the published material and they're not going to get new fixes.
So far I've one client who's spining up their 1st v7 queue manager in a week or so, 2 more who were going to go to v7 but have changed their minds for the medium term and 1 client who's just officially rejected our recommendation they move off v5.3.
In each case these are all major corporate organisations who use WMQ as a key part of their infrastructure. All are perfectly content with their policy.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| John89011 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 94
|
| I have a PDF/PPT Technical update that describes this in a little bit more detailed.. it might be slightly outdated but still worth a look. Not sure where I can post attachments? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| John89011 wrote: |
| Not sure where I can post attachments? |
You can't. But you can post a link.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| John89011 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 23, 2010 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 94
|
Yea there is no link for this.. I guess I can e-mail it to those that PM me with their e-mail.
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
