| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| HACMP, MSCS, VCS - How does that "floating" IP Add |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| smahon |
 Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 24 Apr 2002
Posts: 29
|
Sorry for jumping in so late, but I just came across this post, as it reflects my concern precisely. Added my vote and comment to: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=82204. We also have hundreds of clients and dozens of queue managers, both distributed and z/OS, which connect to our "single IP" queue managers implemented on both AIX and Linux using HA/CMP solutions. Recently bought our first group of MQ Appliances and now I find out the only way to migrate anything to them is to force all applications to change. That is not going to happen, so unless this feature comes out soon, or I can find a reliable way to fail over a secondary IP address when the HA Group fails over, we wasted several hundred thousand dollars.
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| I suspect that the reason that MQ doesn't do this is that MQ doesn't want to mess with anything outside of MQ. Like network adapters. |
On the other hand, the MQ Appliance is dealing with and taking care of a lot more than just MQ. So the pure MQ bits in an MQ Appliance can stay squarely in the MQ realm. But all the other parts that deal with hardware, firmware, replication, network, (potential future) dealings with external storage....perhaps its not so much a stretch to consider that part dealing with virtual IPs, as an option, the same way MSCS, HACAMP and VCS have for years.
I have been made aware that there already is an RFE on this topic for the MQ Appliance
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rfe/execute?use_case=viewRfe&CR_ID=82204
Interesting, with only 1 vote it already has a status of Under Consideration. I added my vote. Please add yours if you think it would be good to have this as an option on the MQ Appliances. It would aid greatly in migrations to the MQ Appliance. And if its implemented optionally, no reason you have to use it in favor of multiple DNS names in the CONNAME of connecting MQ Clients and QMs.
Also, I think by having a virtual IP available per QM on the appliance, it could aid with firewall rules if used in conjunction with LOCLADDR. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Set up something outside of the MQ Appliance that can handle IP failover.
Configure that to point to the IP addresses of the two MQ appliances.
It's a straight forward network routing situation.
Or use MQIPT.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
