| Author |
Message
|
| EricCox |
 Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:25 am Post subject: Find all BAR File names Deployed to a Message Broker Server |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 08 Apr 2011
Posts: 292
|
To all,
I've been given a seamingly simple task to find all the deployed bar files on a broker.
We deploy bar files on Message Broker 8. We do not deploy Message Flows.
As such we want to interogate the Message Broker 8 server to tell us all the bar files that have been deployed on the server.
What is the command I need to run to find the bar files that are deployed on the Message Broker 8 server. I don't want all the Message Flows and their bar files. I want to know just the bar files that are deployed...and hopefully the Execution Group they are deployed to. Knowing the execution group is a nice to have to confirm the bar is deployed in the correct EG. However, we name the bar file with the EG name so we can infer the EG if we need to. But I'd like to interogate and get the names of all deployed bar files.
How can I do this with a command in a script file?
Thanks,
EMC |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EricCox |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:32 am Post subject: Logs |
|
|
Master
Joined: 08 Apr 2011
Posts: 292
|
We are using Midvision Rapid Deploy to do the automated deployment. We are looking to do a validation of what the deployment log says after it is run. It is like a second reconfirmation of what the Rapid Deploy Log says.
That's what I said also. There are two ways to do it. One way is with the deployment logs and the second is to see what actually got laid down on the Broker surface after deployment.
This question is focused on the second step which is to validate what has been laid down.
Thanks Very Much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
Each EG has a UUID-named directory in /var/mqsi/<broker_name>/components, under the UUID is the contents of the bar. The bar file is not in-tact. The contents of the bar is exploded into this directory. AFAIK, the actual bar file is discarded by the broker after deployment.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| joebuckeye |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 365
Location: Columbus, OH
|
You could use mqsilist to gather detailed info on what has been deployed.
But it does not work from the bar file level but from the broker - exec grp - application / library - flow level.
If you use a high detail level (say -d 2) it will tell you which bar file each deployed object came from.
Of course you may have to do a bit of scripting to loop through all the brokers and exec grps to get these details. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EricCox |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:08 am Post subject: MQSILIST and Parse |
|
|
Master
Joined: 08 Apr 2011
Posts: 292
|
Joe,
It does appear you are correct.
Since the bar file is discarded after deployment it does appear I need to list and parse each EG to see what bar files have been deployed there.
I would say to IBM that this leaves a bit of a quandry on how to do a post mortem validation of what bar file objects have been deployed to each EG.
To me this doesn't make sense because we deploy bar files and not the underlying objects contained within.
IBM, are you interested in fixing this?
Thanks for your great help as always.
EMC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:27 am Post subject: Re: MQSILIST and Parse |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| EricCox wrote: |
| IBM, are you interested in fixing this? |
Raise an RFE and find out. It'll get far more attention than any post here, no matter how many of the assembled are in fact IBMers.
Don't forget to post a link so those who agree with you (including the IBMers) can vote for it.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
There's no correlation between a bar file and a message flow.
The same bar file may contain many different message flows, applications, services, libraries at the same time or at different times.
So if you find out you deployed A.bar, and then someone goes and changes A.bar to include different things, you have no idea what was deployed in A.bar.
If you deploy A.bar, and then I create my own A.bar and deploy entirely separate things with it, you have no idea what was deployed in A.bar.
A bar file is just a zip file. It is not a deployable resource, it's a mutable container for deployable resources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Speaking entirely personally, I'm more interested in what's deployed to the broker than what bar file it was in when it arrived. If you want to tie deployed objects back to source without deployment logs, get your deployment mechanism to use the $MQSI mechanism to insert tracking information.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| There's no correlation between a bar file and a message flow. |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| If you deploy A.bar, and then I create my own A.bar and deploy entirely separate things with it, you have no idea what was deployed in A.bar. |
Especially if you're using a CI system that churns bar file names.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| Vitor wrote: |
Especially if you're using a CI system that churns bar file names. |
Yay! Well said Sir Vitor.
Much of the information the OP needs is available via the MQExplorer broker views. It might be there via the CMP interface.
Personally (climbs on Soap Box at Speakers Corner) I prefer to deploy one item in one bar file. As it stands, I don't like the V8 system where everything is identifiable and deployable. At least with V9, if you declare each flow as an application and deploy it in its own container you are back to the pre-v8 behaviour.
This is very old school behaviour and I'm not ashamed to say so. But as every little change to a shared bit of esql has to be completly tested in every flow that uses it. I have seen far too many systems crash into chaos because this isn't done.
In my experience many applications of broker do not lend themselves to CI environments. Simulating remote system failures in a CI environment is not exactly easy. It's too hard so people don't do it.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| I prefer to deploy one item in one bar file. |
It's a solid method, and I too prefer this, but doesn't always lend itself to every situation.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EricCox |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:26 am Post subject: Deployed Objects vs. The Container From Where Deployed |
|
|
Master
Joined: 08 Apr 2011
Posts: 292
|
I agree. The container is just that. I wasn't aware it was discarded after deployment.
I'll have to create a footprint of a properly built EG and the run MQSILIST to ensure all objects have been deployed successfully when compared against the 'gold footprint'.
Thanks you guys. I always learn something asking these crazy questions.
EMC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:34 am Post subject: Re: Deployed Objects vs. The Container From Where Deployed |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| EricCox wrote: |
| I'll have to create a footprint of a properly built EG and the run MQSILIST to ensure all objects have been deployed successfully when compared against the 'gold footprint'. |
Note that the mqsilist will show the $MQSI objects I mention above & may be easier to tie back to the deploy report of this CI system.
Or not. I don't know the system you mention.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EricCox |
| Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:47 am Post subject: Tie it all together |
|
|
Master
Joined: 08 Apr 2011
Posts: 292
|
I think mqsilist is the best way given how Broker consumes the bar and lays down the objects on the broker surface.
It is partially manual which is better than totally manual. We do sometimes have to compromise.
Thanks you guys
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
