| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| HA For Message Broker V7 and MQ 7 |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| mike8570 |
 Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 7:48 am Post subject: HA For Message Broker V7 and MQ 7 |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 4
|
We are planning for upgrade of Message Broker v6.1/ MQ V6 to WMB V7 / MQ V7 and in the process, provide HA to the WMB environment.
We are running WMB on AIX 5.3 and we will be migrating over to a new hardware and AIX 6.1.
I am proposing using HACMP instead of using the Multi instance feature of WMB V7 and WMQ V7. We have the required licenses
for HACMP and Websphere on the 2 nodes, so assuming that is not a issue here.
In our environment, we use SAN ds800 for the external storage. Going thru the Forums regarding the HA, and also the Infocenter, below are the reasons
that I feel HACMP is the way to go.
Issues with Multi Instance WMB/QM's
• Multi Instance QM does not acquire the original QM's IP address on takeover. If we have connections( MQ channels) to the remote QM , this could be a issue in case of failover, as the IP address will change.
• Requires use of NFs for shared filesystems. Locks are maintained by the application (WMB). We generally try to avoid using NFS due to reliability issues in the past.
• Requires use of CCDT, as the address will change on failover
• Applications will require to reconnect on failover.
• Auto reconnect requires MQ 7 clients and QM's
HACMP Advantages
• Requires uses of HACMP (extra cost)
• QM will retain the virtal IP, as HACMP moves the resources to the failover node
• Client applications do not have to worry about the IP address changes in case of failover.
• Resource groups will be moved and started under the control of HACMP.
Can someone share feedback on there experience with Multi Instance v/s HACMP ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2011 9:34 am Post subject: Re: HA For Message Broker V7 and MQ 7 |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mike8570 wrote: |
| Can someone share feedback on there experience with Multi Instance v/s HACMP ? |
If you've got HACMP licenses, HACMP experience & a SAN already, I don't see the advantage for you to use MI.
Not quite an answer to the question you asked I accept. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sridhsri |
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Posts: 297
|
The statement:
| Quote: |
| Requires use of CCDT, as the address will change on failover |
is not necessarily true. They are true only for MQ 6 clients. If you use MQ 7 clients, you don't need CCDTs. MQ 7 clients will automatically switch the to failed instance.
My personal preference is MI QMs. The failover is much faster (because there is no need to flip IPs, storage etc). I have got my MI QM to failover in 3-4 seconds when I do a kill -9 on the amq processes. If all your MQ clients are v7, I don't see a reason why you need HACMP.
Also, applications have to reconnect in both cases.
p.s: I can't see how "extra cost" can be considered an advantage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
V7 clients will not automatically connect to the new instance, if
1. They are written in Java, or another unsupported (for auto-reconnect) languages, or
2. They do not supply multiple connection addresses on the connection string (a CCDT can do this, but non-CCDT apps often won't without coding changes due to the way they process their configuration parameter information).
In many cases apps come from vendors and can't be changed. Even if only some apps are not MI compatible, then MI is effectively not an option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MK8570 |
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 26
Location: PA, USA
|
We have 1 critical application that is a third party and uses .net to connect to MQ.
Advantage with HACMP that I can think of is portability of the service IP address, so that the clients or apps don't have to worry about.
sridhsri: Do you use NFS for the shared FS ? Do do experience any NFS issues when the failover happens ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MK8570 |
| Posted: Wed May 04, 2011 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 26
Location: PA, USA
|
| To correct my initial post, extra cost associated with HACMP is not a advantage, but wanted to avoid further questions about the costs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
