| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| WMQ 7.0.1.3 |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| exerk |
 Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 6:45 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| zpat wrote: |
| ...Boeing have produced a largely new aeroplane every few years, but I expect it to be able to fly extremely reliably before customers get into it... |
You would be surprised at the number of in-service snags any new aircraft has...nothing to stop them flying of course!
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9475
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| ...nothing to stop them flying of course! |
Actually, lots of ptf's and apars apply to aircraft.
Nearly all airlines have multiple aircraft. This allows for one (or more) to be out-of-service for maintenance while others continue to violate all the laws of physics and common-sense. For us, this would be cold-standby servers.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Unfortunately MQ bugs apply to all MQ servers at the same time.
It's not like you can take the buggy one out of service and replace it with a bug free one.
Avionics etc are very reliable.
How often has the software in your car developed a fault? There is the old joke about a car designed by M$ crashing five times a day... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9475
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately MQ bugs apply to all MQ servers at the same time. |
This presumes that all applications run identically on all server instances; and that all server instances run the exact same o/s level, etc..
This is a g great reason not to have all server instances at exactly the same service-level; and/or to have one application set on one server, and other application on another server.
Avionics are very reliable; but good pilots know alternative methods of getting there, should one nav-aid fail.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
I have a pilots license as it happens, so it wasn't a chance analogy.
Anyway the point is that I am not particularly happy with the number of bugs affecting existing function in WMQ 7, two years after GA. These is nothing more to be said.
Of course IBM software and service is probably the best of its kind - but I think the entire industry accepts far too many bugs as normal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9475
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
I appreciate your disappointment with post-GA bugs.
Given the complexity of WMQ code, and the nearly-infinite way it can be configured, and the nearly-infinite way it can be mixed in the environment, and the nearly-infinite way it can be (mis-)used, I'm astonished that so few bugs are actually deployed in the GA product.
Years back, I had a long conversation with our new CIO who was astonished and outraged that in-house and purchased code (including o/s's) included bugs. He was clearly new to IT and reality.
In describing (begging forgiveness for) outages we endured from software failures, the CIO would ask "Why didn't we test for this before going live?!" I framed the answer to this with the contact admin space program categories of things they anticipate in their testing:
1) knowns - things we know to test for, things we encountered in prior tests or failures, things that are predictable. (Use of oxygen in an electrical environment fits this category.)
2) unknowns - things we know that might lead to failures, but are as yet untested, things that might have been predictable had we some base information. (Life in weightless space fit this category BEFORE we actually sent anyone into a weightless environment.)
3) unknown unknowns - things we don't know that we don't know.
As a base statement: we can't test for everything. We create benchmarks (small, medium, large). We use real- and test-data. We devote what time is available. We go live. We add to our collective understanding of failures and risks.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mvic |
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 2080
|
| Quote: |
| Of course IBM software and service is probably the best of its kind - but I think the entire industry accepts far too many bugs as normal. |
Agree on both counts.
NB. MQ v6 is in support until approx. 1 year from now. Perhaps best to migrate to MQ v7 in the coming year.. to get best quality overlap.
Sorry to hear of your troubles.. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
