|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
 |
|
Capacity/Performance question |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
Author |
Message
|
smeunier |
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:14 am Post subject: Capacity/Performance question |
|
|
 Partisan
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 Posts: 305 Location: Green Mountains of Vermont
|
I have a traffic cop type Message flow. At this time, I take incoming transactions and look at the message header and then deposit them to a output queue specific to that transaction. Another message flow monitors those queues and then processes the transactin.
My question is, if after I look at the message, rather than outputing it to a queue for seperate messageflow processing, would it be just as well, to forward it on to the intended message flow(as a subflow)? Would I suffer a bottleneck, and would the parent message flow(traffic cop) then become multi threaded and achieve what I'm doing by seperate queues?
My fear is, that sequential processing would occur, rather than multiple processing, like I'm getting by funneling the message to individual queues, which are monitored by seperate message flows.
Thoughts or alternate ideas. My intenetion, was to try and eliminate all the queues I have for specific transactions. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
kirani |
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 05 Sep 2001 Posts: 3779 Location: Torrance, CA, USA
|
Yes, by default the processing will be sequential. But, you can run multiple instances of your traffic-cop message flow to increase throughput and allow parallel processing.
You can use Route-To-Label node in your message flow to route to different Transaction Sub-flows. _________________ Kiran
IBM Cert. Solution Designer & System Administrator - WBIMB V5
IBM Cert. Solutions Expert - WMQI
IBM Cert. Specialist - WMQI, MQSeries
IBM Cert. Developer - MQSeries
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Michael Dag |
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002 Posts: 2607 Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
Additionally the multiple instances do not work on Solaris,
so if you are on Solaris you need to deploy the same messageflow to multiple execution groups to 'cope' with this. _________________ Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
smeunier |
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Partisan
Joined: 19 Aug 2002 Posts: 305 Location: Green Mountains of Vermont
|
So, for the small administration cost for MQ, it may not be worth it. Yes, I use the RouteToLabel node to direct to MQ Queues now.
Thanks guys! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Michael Dag |
Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002 Posts: 2607 Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
You at least 'save' one MQPUT and one MQGET, if your messages are persistent that can be a significant improvement on your overall throughput. _________________ Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
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
|
|
|
|