| Author |
Message
|
| pgorak |
 Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 2:53 am Post subject: MQSeries and MSMQ |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 158
Location: Cracow, Poland
|
Hi all,
Does anyone have experience with using both MQSeries and MSMQ? If so, can you compare these two products shortly in terms of performance?
Any other comparisons (e.g. in terms of security, maintainability, etc.) also appreciated.
Piotr
_________________
***
IBM Certified Solution Developer WebSphere MQ 5.3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| JLRowe |
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 25 May 2002
Posts: 664
Location: South East London
|
For 'independent' evaluations where MQ wins, see the IBM website.
For 'independent' evaluations where MSMQ wins, see MS.
I am not aware of any truly independent evaluations! I suppose that's what us techies are paid to do...
MQ is available on just about every platform in christendom, MSMQ (by definition) only runs on windows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bduncan |
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 11 Apr 2001
Posts: 1554
Location: Silicon Valley
|
I agree with Jonathan that the greatest drawback to MSMQ is that it only runs on Windows whereas MQ is available for 25 or so platforms. Although I do believe there is an MQ-MSMQ bridge (although not the other way around?)
_________________
Brandon Duncan
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist
MQSeries.net forum moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
Well MSMQ-MQ bridge must be bi-directional as wherever I run into MicroSoft (not intended as an MS-bash!!!)
and another platform is involved besides Windows (were is there only one platform?) they always tell to use MQ for the rest...
question that keeps popping into my mind is: If I need to use MQ on any other platform why bother with MSMQ on Windows???
Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pgorak |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Jul 2002
Posts: 158
Location: Cracow, Poland
|
I agree with you, Michael. It's just that I attended a presentation of new BizTalk server (which has an MQSeries adapter) and was thinking what would be the reasons for using either MSMQ or MQSeries. I think as long as one sticks to Microsoft, one can use MSMQ for cost-cutting reasons. MQSeries appears as soon as other platforms are involved.
Thanks to all of you for the replies.
Piotr
_________________
***
IBM Certified Solution Developer WebSphere MQ 5.3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
| pgorak wrote: |
| I think as long as one sticks to Microsoft, one can use MSMQ for cost-cutting reasons. |
Why do you think there is an WebSphere MQ Express version which is half the price??? 
Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:13 am Post subject: MQ and MSMQ |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
I worked for three years in an environment where we supported both MQ and MSMQ.
MSMQ is a developer's dream and an administrator's nightmare. There is no good way for the environment to be locked down, so queues can be created on the fly by developer. Handling of dead letters is peculiar; messages can stay "alive" and clog up domain controllers before they finally become available for manipulation. MSMQ also had the alarming tendency to simply die without any errors in the event viewer. If you intend to send messages between Windows domains, it's quite a challenge.
MQ, on the other hand, is extremely maintainable, espeicially if the admin is involved in architecting the environment. We had significantly less downtime with the MQ infrastructure than MSMQ. We also had better success at root cause analysis with MQ, when we did have a problem.
My two cents: MSMQ is a good solution for a very small shop, but MQ is a better solution for an enterprise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
