| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| CONNAME - must we use IP or NAME ? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| bruce2359 |
 Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 6:06 am Post subject: Re: CONNAME - must we use IP or NAME ? |
 |
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9472
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
Does that mean that if you have NAT you would create 2 (or more) cluster receiver channels, one per IP? if you are really worried about efficiency of the DNS name resolution should you not have all the needed names in the /etc/hosts to bypass the DNS and supply the correct information? This would still allow you to supply a different IP depending on where in the network your host is located...  |
My reply was to the OPs pondering about efficiency.
I would not consider ip address vs. DNS name the greatest opportunity for performance tuning - not the low-hanging fruit that yields significant throughput improvement - because:
- channels don't (re)start all that frequently
- most destinations (names or addresses) are known in advance
- most destinations will be available most of the time
My worst-case scenario is/was a hypothetical - what if the DNS names were presented were random (not known)?
Been to Japan? In some of the older cities house numbers (addresses) were issued in order of their construction, and not order of placement. House 1 could be next to house 252. Locating a residence would involve a DNS-like lookup - a longer path.
Hard-coding has its merits and down-sides.
_________________
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: Sun May 17, 2015 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
This is a completely pointless thread given that DNS resolution does not happen that often (and can easily be cached anyway).
If you are really bothered then increase the channel disconnect interval.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2015 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9472
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| zpat wrote: |
| This is a completely pointless thread ... |
Clients ask these questions. It's useful to have an understanding of networking concepts.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
