| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Maximum instances of a message flow in an execution group |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| akulavijay |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:37 pm Post subject: Maximum instances of a message flow in an execution group |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 9
|
Hi
I came across the statement "Only a maximum of 255 instances of a message flow can run within an execution group". I take it as per message flow. Meaning if I have two message flows running then I can have maximum of 255 for each of the flows and hence in total up to 510 instances running. Can someone please confirm.
Thanks in Advance |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Gaya3 |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 2493
Location: Boston, US
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I don't think these limits are enforced any more, particularly with the movement to 64-bit architectures.
The other thing to keep in mind is that it's only the number of input nodes - across the entire integration server/execution group - that maintain continuous threads. Threads for additional instances are created when needed, cached for a bit for reuse, and then shut down after a period of inactivity.
But you really should be doing a lot of performance testing to ensure you have the right number of instances for your workload. 100 instances of a single flow is probably a very large overkill.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Hitting the maximum suggests your design is wrong. Try not to wait inside a flow, as it means you will end up losing incoming requests (assuming that you use a synchronous protocol) when they are all busy.
Use queueing technology to avoid all these sort of issues.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
