| Author |
Message
|
| manishpnp |
 Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:59 am Post subject: Error while creating execution group in message broker 6 |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Posts: 46
|
Hello,
I'm trying to create execution group for the broker "BRKUDL" but getting below error:-
Broker 'BRKUDL' was not found in the Configuration Manager repository.
Reissue the command specifying an existing broker.
I have followed below steps to create Broker, Configuration Manager and execution group.
Broker and ConfigManagers created sucesfully without any error.
mqsicreatebroker BRKUDL -i satadmin -a sat9admin -q BRKQMGRUDL -n DBUDL_ME -u satdb -p password09
mqsicreateconfigmgr CMNUDL -i satadmin -a sat9admin -q CMQMGR
mqsicreateexecutiongroup -i 192.168.0.19 -p 2222 -q CMQMGR -b BRKUDL -e EG_SATUDL
BIP1044I: Connecting to the Configuration Manager's queue manager...
BIP1045I: Connecting to the Configuration Manager...
BIP1037S: Broker not found.
Broker 'BRKUDL' was not found in the Configuration Manager repository.
Reissue the command specifying an existing broker.
[SATMQSI:satadmin:]-/home/satadmin> mqsilist
BIP8099I: Broker: BRKUDL - QMGRUDL
BIP8099I: ConfigMgr: CMNUDL - CMQMGR
Broker component details :-
Broker Name - BRKUDL
Broker QMGR - BRKQMGRUDL
ConfigMgr - CMNUDL
Config QMGR - CMQMGR
BROKER DB - DBUDL_ME (Broker Database hosted on remote oracle server and client has setup in broker node)
EG Name - EG_SATUDL
192.168.0.19 - Ip address of all above component hosted
2222 - Config MGr QMGR listener port
Could you please look into this and guide me where thing goes wrong.
Thanks,
manish |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:02 am Post subject: Re: Error while creating execution group in message broker 6 |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| manishpnp wrote: |
| Could you please look into this and guide me where thing goes wrong. |
Assuming the 2 queue managers in question can comunicate, where in those steps did you add the broker to the config manager's repository? I don't see that step and would explain the error message indicating the broker was not found in the config manager's repository.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You need to specify an additional flag on mqsicreateexecutiongroup.
You also need to make sure you are using at least v6.1, and not v6.0.
6.0 goes out of support REALLY SOON NOW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
You also need to make sure you are using at least v6.1, and not v6.0.
6.0 goes out of support REALLY SOON NOW. |
Crikey! Does that mean 6.0 will suddenly stop working "REALLY SOON NOW".
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
You also need to make sure you are using at least v6.1, and not v6.0.
6.0 goes out of support REALLY SOON NOW. |
Crikey! Does that mean 6.0 will suddenly stop working "REALLY SOON NOW". |
Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
You also need to make sure you are using at least v6.1, and not v6.0.
6.0 goes out of support REALLY SOON NOW. |
Crikey! Does that mean 6.0 will suddenly stop working "REALLY SOON NOW". |
No, but it does mean that REALLY SOON NOW anyone still supporting v6 should have signed testimonials from senior management that they understand it could (not will) stop working the next time any change is made to the system (if that change is made to a broker related component or not), no help will be forthcoming from IBM when it stops working and that it's not the fault of the poor whelp supporting the out of support system.
It should further say that this risk will slide gently from "could" to "will" as time passes, and that's not the fault of the admin either.
May not save your career, but will enable you take a few of them down with you. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| fatherjack wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
You also need to make sure you are using at least v6.1, and not v6.0.
6.0 goes out of support REALLY SOON NOW. |
Crikey! Does that mean 6.0 will suddenly stop working "REALLY SOON NOW". |
Yes. |
Why's that? Is there something similar to the Y2K bug in there?
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
Crikey! Does that mean 6.0 will suddenly stop working "REALLY SOON NOW".
Why's that? Is there something similar to the Y2K bug in there? |
I'm not saying.
How lucky do you feel?
   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| no help will be forthcoming from IBM when it stops working |
I think thats a bit unfair on IBM. In my experience even with software that is 'out of support' the supplier will often still investiagte your problems and if its a known defect they will supply the fix under your support agreement. So 'out of support' does not necessarily mean you won't get support. Only when its a new problem are you stuck. 'Cos they won't develop a new fix. Unless you pay for it.
But my general pint is....
See my next post
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
| But my general pint is.... |
Guiness.
No, obviously I meant *point*. HIC!
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| How lucky do you feel? |
"If it aint broke, dont fix it"
The thing that a number of posters to this site and a number of software suppliers don't seem to recognise is that it can be a HUGE undertaking for an organisation to implement a new relaese of system software such as database software, operating system software etc. and MQ and WMB come into this category. Often even after enormous amounts of testing you might find something in 'live-testing' that forces you to back out and then you might not get another implementation opportunity for months depending on the organisations schedules. So simply telling people they need to be up-to-date with their software releases isn't really helpful.
Sure if the problem is known to be fixed in a more up-to-date release fine, but lets not get hung up on the need to be right up-to-date with our software levels. Often the cost of upgrading can far outweigh the risks of not doing so.
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You can think it unfair, or not, as you choose. The value of holding either position is also left to your discretion.
But "End of Service" has a clear definition, handily mentioned here, which also puts a bit more detail into "really soon now".
And if you open a PMR for Broker 6.0 after the EOS date, you will not likely get a very helpful response - the longer after the date, the less helpful it will be.
End of Service means END of SERVICE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
| The thing that a number of posters to this site and a number of software suppliers don't seem to recognise is that it can be a HUGE undertaking for an organisation to implement a new relaese of system software such as database software, operating system software etc. and MQ and WMB come into this category. |
The size of this undertaking doesn't change from the day you have purchased the software to the day the software goes out of support.
You have, under the current rules, 5 full years to plan and manage around the fact that after that time you really should be using a new version of software.
And there are hundreds of other reason why you should be using a new version software - ANY software - after 5 years.
You should have replaced your OWN code after 5 years.
Examples of COBOL programs that have been running fine for 60 years, and are not replaced because they are simply too complicated and convoluted do not disprove this point, in fact they reinforce it.
Also, please note that I am not (at least right here) specifically advocating being "right up to date".
I'm merely saying "stay at supported levels". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| fatherjack wrote: |
| The thing that a number of posters to this site and a number of software suppliers don't seem to recognise is that it can be a HUGE undertaking for an organisation to implement a new relaese of system software such as database software, operating system software etc. and MQ and WMB come into this category. |
The size of this undertaking doesn't change from the day you have purchased the software to the day the software goes out of support.
You have, under the current rules, 5 full years to plan and manage around the fact that after that time you really should be using a new version of software.
And there are hundreds of other reason why you should be using a new version software - ANY software - after 5 years.
You should have replaced your OWN code after 5 years.
Examples of COBOL programs that have been running fine for 60 years, and are not replaced because they are simply too complicated and convoluted do not disprove this point, in fact they reinforce it.
Also, please note that I am not (at least right here) specifically advocating being "right up to date".
I'm merely saying "stay at supported levels". |
I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that all too often the response to a 'problem' reported either here on this site or to a software vendor is "you need to be at version n.n.n.n+n rather than n.n.n.n."
And do we really get 5-years? That means from 6.1.0.0 to 6.1.0.8 we'd have 40 years to upgrade 
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| fatherjack wrote: |
| "If it aint broke, dont fix it" |
The point I was driving at is not only is that true, it applies to the entire system. If you've got an out of support level of anything it's almost certainly going to keep running provided that nothing changes. Each time you apply a patch to the OS, or maintenance to the database, or whatever, that change won't have been tested against the OOS software and could cause a problem.
All you need to do is ensure that either everyone's on board with the risk, or everyone agrees that the machine in question doesn't get updates. Which could have consequences if you need to apply maintenance to something else to fix an actual problem.
| fatherjack wrote: |
| The thing that a number of posters to this site and a number of software suppliers don't seem to recognise is that it can be a HUGE undertaking for an organisation to implement a new relaese of system software such as database software, operating system software etc. and MQ and WMB come into this category. |
I'm not one of them, and I'm currently taking my own advice with WMQv6.
| fatherjack wrote: |
| Often the cost of upgrading can far outweigh the risks of not doing so. |
And often the cost of upgrading later far outweighs the cost of doing it now. Witness the poor poster on here a few weeks back trying to get WMQv5.2 to run on Solaris 10. Not upgraded because there was no need (no OS changes, no app changes school of thought) and no plans to update anything until their hardware support company changed & wouldn't support the old version of the OS they were using. So this poor bloke is left holding the baby because it's now not only super-urgent to upgrade WMQ, but the rest of the software stack is moving up versions & everyone's scrambling to test.
So IMHO it's not essential to be on the latest bang on version of the software. It is essential that when you decide to upgrade or not upgrade, all the consequences of that decision are understood.
Like here. Management feel that we can't afford (in terms of testing time) to upgrade to WMQv7 until 2014. They've accepted that this might mean we can't upgrade the servers off Windows XP and might need to keep running what we have. They've accepted that these servers will not now be updated with anything other than critical OS patches. They've accepted it could still all go horribly wrong for some unforseen reason.
And when they've signed up to that, I'll crawl back under my stone and wait for the Active Directory implementation to blow through.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
