| Author |
Message
|
| mgk |
 Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1642
|
| Quote: |
| It allows you to aviod exposing the Broker System directly to the web service clients |
FYI, The Proxy Servet mentioned here is remote - you put it into a servlet container of your choice running wherever you like and it connects back to the broker using an MQ Client connection...
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mogol |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 03 Mar 2011
Posts: 9
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
Look at the HTTP Proxy Servlet.
That comes FREE with Broker. |
It is little interesting. I am read "HTTP proxy servlet overview" (I couldn't post link, as new on forum, but you could find in docs for version 7.0.0.2) and there stated what
| IBM wrote: |
| You cannot use the HTTP proxy servlet if you configure your broker environment to use multi-instance WebSphere MQ queue managers; the servlet cannot connect to the standby queue manager when it becomes active. |
Because chris boehnke interests in solution for a multi instance, it's not applicable for him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mogol |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 03 Mar 2011
Posts: 9
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| All the more reason not to use a ACTIVE-PASSIVE setup. |
Why? If I have two identical servers "Active and Passive" I could use about 70-80% load of one, and in crash I switch to passive server w/o lost of productivity. If I use both server, I must not overload than 35-40% per server, because in fail one of them, second server must do all work with 70-80% of load. As result, I don't have any profit in stablity, but need spent more time to configuration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| mogol wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
Look at the HTTP Proxy Servlet.
That comes FREE with Broker. |
It is little interesting. I am read "HTTP proxy servlet overview" (I couldn't post link, as new on forum, but you could find in docs for version 7.0.0.2) and there stated what
| IBM wrote: |
| You cannot use the HTTP proxy servlet if you configure your broker environment to use multi-instance WebSphere MQ queue managers; the servlet cannot connect to the standby queue manager when it becomes active. |
Because chris boehnke interests in solution for a multi instance, it's not applicable for him. |
This needs to be fixed.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| mogol wrote: |
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| All the more reason not to use a ACTIVE-PASSIVE setup. |
Why? If I have two identical servers "Active and Passive" I could use about 70-80% load of one, and in crash I switch to passive server w/o lost of productivity. If I use both server, I must not overload than 35-40% per server, because in fail one of them, second server must do all work with 70-80% of load. As result, I don't have any profit in stablity, but need spent more time to configuration. |
The concept is to have both Active-Active provide value to the business. You can overload servers and see longer latency, but still meet SLAs.
Active-Passive is a poor use of resources. It is not intelligent design and disregards efforts to make more efficient use of resources, both human and natural.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mogol |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 03 Mar 2011
Posts: 9
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
The concept is to have both Active-Active provide value to the business. You can overload servers and see longer latency, but still meet SLAs.
Active-Passive is a poor use of resources. It is not intelligent design and disregards efforts to make more efficient use of resources, both human and natural. |
Sorry, but why poor??? When I said "reserve", I mean system doesn't lost its characteristic after onetime fail. And CPU load is about 35-40% for spread workload or 70-80% for active server, means maximum allowed "time of response". Increase of this workload is not accepted.
But If you told not "total reserve", but "temporary substitute", it make a sense. While user get a long waiting, administrator work hard to repair network link or replace PSU, or buy new server.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
Hi mogol,
You have a valid viewpoint. I think we could discuss the merits of several aspects of business service restoration in a separate thread. I will create it and we can continue our discussion...
Lance
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| chris boehnke |
| Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 369
|
| mogol wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
Look at the HTTP Proxy Servlet.
That comes FREE with Broker. |
It is little interesting. I am read "HTTP proxy servlet overview" (I couldn't post link, as new on forum, but you could find in docs for version 7.0.0.2) and there stated what
| IBM wrote: |
| You cannot use the HTTP proxy servlet if you configure your broker environment to use multi-instance WebSphere MQ queue managers; the servlet cannot connect to the standby queue manager when it becomes active. |
Because chris boehnke interests in solution for a multi instance, it's not applicable for him. |
Good point. I see it under http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wmbhelp/v7r0m0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.etools.mft.doc/ac69300_.htm
Do you guys think "Proxy server via HTTP Server plugin" will work?.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| chris boehnke |
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 369
|
Hi,
We are planning to use F5 loadbalancer to route the webservice client requests to active broker. We wanted to configure both httplistener and SOAP listener on a single port which is possiple with v7.0.0.1 of broker as per this link: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21420032
| Quote: |
| In addition, in Broker version 7.0.0.1, this picture is simplified. In 7.0.0.1 and later of Broker, the HTTP nodes can use the SOAP Listener rather than the bipHTTPListener process. There is an overview of this including links to further discussion here. |
We wanted to provide single port#(for both http & SOAP listener) to the network team whoever configures the F5 loadbalancer. The F5 loadbalancer should send the traffic based on httplistener(SOAPListener) active. Whereever the SOAP(httplistener) is the active(running), that is the active instance of broker and F5 load balancer should send the SOAP requests there onto that active broker.
With the mqsichangeproperties command, I only see httplistener but not the SOAP listener to configure.
Can you guys let me know how to configure both httplistener & SOAPlistener on the same port?.
(Note: We could use 2 different port# for httplistener & SOAP listener but we wanted to provide single port to the network team which makes their job easier and avoid confusion).
Let me know.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
you seem to have forgotten that the SOAP listener is at eg level whereas the http listener is at broker level. I would expect each eg with a SOAP listener to use a different port.
Haven't tried what would happen if they (eg) had the same port, but that would certainly mean that you could not deploy the same SOAP flow successfully to multiple e.g.s on the same machine 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
you seem to have forgotten that the SOAP listener is at eg level whereas the http listener is at broker level. I would expect each eg with a SOAP listener to use a different port.
|
True BUT BUT BUT (there is one isn't there)
Remember that for V7 onwards there can be (depending upon how you configure it)
An HTTP Listener as well as a HTTP SOAP as well as a HTTPS SOAP Listener for every execution group.(and and HTTPS listener as well if I remember correctly but I might be wrong)
All the Load Balancers I've come upon can switch multiple ports from on IP to another. PErhaps the people who look after your LB's should do a little RTFM here.
Then having multiple ports associated with an IP address might not be so much of a problemo.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
AFAIK at V7 there still is
And yes your network folks should be able to take care of all these with the load balancer.
Last and not least consider Enabling the WebSphere MQ listener for SOAP nodes when configuring the proxy servlet
Have fun
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| chris boehnke |
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 369
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
AFAIK at V7 there still is
And yes your network folks should be able to take care of all these with the load balancer.
Last and not least consider Enabling the WebSphere MQ listener for SOAP nodes when configuring the proxy servlet
Have fun |
Instead of changing the httplistener and SOAPlistener, the F5 load balancer needs to look for QMgr listener as the broker is started with mqm service id. Broker will start/ stop along with MQ manager. If the QMgr listener is active, F5 load balancer should send the traffic there.
Let me know your thoughts.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
As the broker will start / stop with the qmgr the F5 should do just fine.
On one side it will connect, on the stand by side it will not. No need to do some elaborate additional check on the qmgr.
Talk to your network folks, outline the situation to them and ask what is possible. I'm sure they will have some kind of a solution to discuss with you.
Have fun
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
