| Author |
Message
|
| kishi_25 |
 Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:13 pm Post subject: regarding multinstance QM with broker |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
hi,
Can We implement multi instance QM with regular broker?
means..broker is not multi instance
If so, what are the pros and cons
thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 2:12 pm Post subject: Re: regarding multinstance QM with broker |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kishi_25 wrote: |
Can We implement multi instance QM with regular broker?
means..broker is not multi instance |
Why would you want a multi-instance queue manager without a multi-instance broker?
When you start the standby instance queue manager, can you explain to the broker what just happened?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kishi_25 |
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
We will be defining the broker as a service of MQ. With this option, whenever QM is stopped and started the broker works the same way.
So, for multi instance QM, I will be defining broker on 2 serves 1 for active QM and 1 for Stand by QM.
With this option, if the QM fails over the broker will be stopped on active Server and starts along with standby QM since its defined as MQ service |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kishi_25 |
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
| In the above option, broker is not defined as multi instance |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| kishi_25 wrote: |
We will be defining the broker as a service of MQ. With this option, whenever QM is stopped and started the broker works the same way.
So, for multi instance QM, I will be defining broker on 2 serves 1 for active QM and 1 for Stand by QM.
With this option, if the QM fails over the broker will be stopped on active Server and starts along with standby QM since its defined as MQ service |
And how, pray you, will you deploy your flows and keep them current between the 2 broker instances if your broker is not multi-instance?
Think first about whether or not your design makes sense at all. 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kishi_25 wrote: |
We will be defining the broker as a service of MQ. With this option, whenever QM is stopped and started the broker works the same way.
So, for multi instance QM, I will be defining broker on 2 serves 1 for active QM and 1 for Stand by QM.
With this option, if the QM fails over the broker will be stopped on active Server and starts along with standby QM since its defined as MQ service |
And what exactly does this get you? Apart from a lot of pain, misery, heartache and a contact admin, oozy mess when you try and use it.
It might well work. Might. In the same way bolting a large rocket to the top of your car will make it go faster. You may experience some issues stopping, turning or dealing with holes in the road.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| kishi_25 wrote: |
| starts along with standby QM since its defined as MQ service |
Starts *where*?
It certainly won't start on the machine that held the primary queue manager.
It certainly *won't* be the *same* broker if it's defined on the secondary queue manager.
Please pay *very close* attention to this next sentence.
Everything you are describing is exactly how a multi-instance broker works..
Except that the multi-instance broker will actually work.
You are talking about having two separate brokers sharing the same queue manager - which doesn't work. Or you are talking about having a broker establish a client connection to a remote queue manager, which doesn't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| You are talking about having two separate brokers sharing the same queue manager - which doesn't work |
Though you could klude the 2nd broker into acting like it's the first broker. Just like you can bolt a rocket to your car.
However:
| mqjeff wrote: |
Everything you are describing is exactly how a multi-instance broker works..
Except that the multi-instance broker will actually work. |
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kishi_25 |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
hi all,
thanks for your valuable inputs. I have tested for both scnearios and conclusion is obviously multi instance is best. it involves less over head.
thanks, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kishi_25 wrote: |
| conclusion is obviously multi instance is best. |
I'm moderately impressed you got the other option to work at all.
What did you end up having to do? Or did you not fail the broker over but have an utterly separate broker on the standby queue manager? Hence your "less overhead" means "we havn't doubled our workload and don't have to live in fear that the 2 brokers are not in fact running different versions of the flows"?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kishi_25 |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
you are absolutely correct. The work will be doubled as it works as 2 borkers connected to a QM for non-multiinstance broker.
Ofcourse, it's failing over for non-mlulti instance broker option. But, I'm seeing the standby broker is not running in stand-by mode for both multi instance and non-multi instance broker options.
may be it's due to broker creating as service of mq. I'm researching on this. any inputs will be appreciated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
This is the caveat with multi-instance brokers: they only fail over when the queue manager fails and only under the control of the qmgr.
Brokers are in and of themselves already highly available. Any given EG will be restarted by bipBroker if it fails. bipBroker will be restarted by bipService if it fails... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kishi_25 |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
| can you please provide little bit detail on this? do you mean by having mqservice option for multi instance broker, will there be any disadvantages? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kishi_25 |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
| also, if the standby broker is in stopped status instead of standby status. will it make any difference? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| kishi_25 wrote: |
| also, if the standby broker is in stopped status instead of standby status. will it make any difference? |
Not if the service is starting the broker automatically on qmgr startup.
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
