| Author |
Message
|
| sebulba_dz |
 Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:02 am Post subject: cluster fluster |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 20
Location: UK
|
I'm in a dilemma over which architecture to adopt. I hope you guys can give me some feedback on my plans. I'm running 5.3 on solaris. I'm not sure how much detail i should get into so i will keep this brief first.
scenario 1.
MQ Cluster over 2 machines. Unix1 has QM1a, QM2a, QM3a and Unix2 has QM1b, QM2b and QM3b. I have 2 interface qmgr, QM1x and QM2x, and these are the qmgrs that will be visible to the apps.
scenario 2.
OS cluster over 2 machines. Unix1 has QM1 and QM3 active(QM1 and 3 choice made based on load..crude i must admit), Unix2 has QM2 active. If Unix1 fails, QM1 and QM3 will be brought up on Unix2 using VCS. Apps connect to our qmgrs via virtual ip, so they should reconnect once the services are up on Unix2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
what are you trying to accomplish?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sebulba_dz |
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 20
Location: UK
|
| the boss wants high availability and seamless failover for applications. will there be a big difference in performance for the 2 scenarios? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
| sebulba_dz wrote: |
| the boss wants high availability and seamless failover for applications. will there be a big difference in performance for the 2 scenarios? |
the biggest difference is that 1 does not work for failover... see the search button and many many posts on this subject.
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sebulba_dz |
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 20
Location: UK
|
yeah, which is why personally i'm all for 2 initially...
what i can do for 1 for failover to work is to move the interface qmgrs out to another machine, and implement os clustering on that machine. cost of that - 2 more servers...and pain of additional admin.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sebulba_dz |
| Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Jun 2003
Posts: 20
Location: UK
|
point taken...but i don't have the budget for another 2 servers 
i'll just do 2, and when the servers start to cry out, the money will hopefully be available.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
