| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Client Vs. Bindings Mode - Performance |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Bnikpour |
 Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 am Post subject: Client Vs. Bindings Mode - Performance |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 20
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
Hi guys,
I read in the infocenter that bindings mode offers better performance than client mode. The infocenter did not, however, go further into detailing what kind of performance increases can be seen and why. I was wondering if any of you had first hand experience and could enlighten me on where exactly these performance gains are realized?
| Quote: |
| Bindings-mode offers best performance but the SYSTEM.DEF.SVRCONN must be disabled by specifying an invalid MCAUSER user ID. No other configuration is required. |
| Quote: |
| BINDINGS is faster by 30% or more |
_________________
Addicted to E-mail, not by choice.
MQ & WAS Admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:55 am Post subject: Re: Client Vs. Bindings Mode - Performance |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Bnikpour wrote: |
| I was wondering if any of you had first hand experience and could enlighten me on where exactly these performance gains are realized? |
Client connections go through the TCP/IP stack and (if the client isn't on the same box) over cable & network hardware.
Bindings uses direct calls to the queue manager.
As explained just above that quote here, so I guess that wasn't your question. Perhaps you could rephrase?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bnikpour |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 20
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
I just don't understand how its that much faster? Does going over the network really slow down message transfer to a point where you would NEVER use a client connection instead of a bindings connection?
I want to use client connections to save $$.
I guess my question was more regarding the impact of switching from binding to client connections.
Would this performance hit be a showstopper to using client connections over binding mode? High impact to MQ SLA times?
_________________
Addicted to E-mail, not by choice.
MQ & WAS Admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Bnikpour wrote: |
| I just don't understand how its that much faster? |
It's the difference between going out to the TCP/IP stack, across the network & in though the stack and going from one in-memory process to another in-memory process.
| Bnikpour wrote: |
| Does going over the network really slow down message transfer to a point where you would NEVER use a client connection instead of a bindings connection? |
Of course not. In my experience the majority of connections are clients
| Bnikpour wrote: |
| I want to use client connections to save $$. |
This is one good reason to use clients. Another good reason is that the application connecting to the queue manager can't or don't want to run on the same server as the queue manager.
| Bnikpour wrote: |
| I guess my question was more regarding the impact of switching from binding to client connections. |
If the applications use XA they'll stop working unless you have access to the ETC by one means or another. Aside from that you'll need to ensure the applications have proper reconnect logic (a bindings connection can't fail, a client connection often does) and you'll need to have proper client definitions (e.g. CCDT for each application).
And they'll run a bit slower. 
| Bnikpour wrote: |
| Would this performance hit be a showstopper to using client connections over binding mode? High impact to MQ SLA times? |
Depends on your SLA. If it's 15 seconds and the application currently takes 5 seconds you're probably ok. If your SLA is 2 seconds and average time is currently 1.5 seconds I'd think long and hard before moving them.
A few simple time trials in your sandbox would seem a logical next step for you.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bnikpour |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 19 Apr 2011
Posts: 20
Location: Phoenix, AZ
|
Thanks! exactly the kind of information I was looking for. 
_________________
Addicted to E-mail, not by choice.
MQ & WAS Admin |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
