|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
Error starting IIIB Node while Configuring IIB v10 for HA |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
Author |
Message
|
madrox |
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Acolyte
Joined: 11 Mar 2015 Posts: 71
|
Vitor wrote: |
madrox wrote: |
No i mean 2 queue managers 2 brokers, with F5. So i am assuming Queue managers will have to be clustered. |
That's a false assumption. If you have 2 brokers behind an F5 (so I assume both brokers are hosting the same endpoints and you're load balancing) then from a broker standpoint they have separate queue managers and no connection to each other.
Now if there's something more in your architecture, for example a need for either broker to service a reply to a query then you need to start thinking about some kind of shared storage of the query status. This still doesn't have anything to do with the broker software and doesn't immediately call for a queue manager cluster.
So can you just run 2 distinct brokers behind an F5? What exactly do you have going on? |
Yes we have 2 brokers behind an F5. Yes they have one endpoint, both the brokers and qmgrs have the same name.
So in terms of traffic coming through the F5 if one broker is down it will direct to the other.
So what about message queue based messages is my question? what happens then? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
exerk |
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006 Posts: 6339
|
madrox wrote: |
...both the brokers and qmgrs have the same name... |
This is a really, really bad idea - the inadvisability of having two queue managers in your network, of the same name, is a disaster waiting to happen, especially if you do need to put them in a queue manager cluster at a later date; your MQ world will burn down around you. _________________ 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 |
|
 |
Vitor |
Posted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
madrox wrote: |
Yes we have 2 brokers behind an F5. Yes they have one endpoint, both the brokers and qmgrs have the same name. |
That's a massively terrible idea. If one broker/queue manager is the passive pair of a multi-instance set up (which you were initially talking about) that's one thing but if you in fact have 2 separate brokers this is really, really bad (for at least one reason I'll get to in a minute)
madrox wrote: |
So in terms of traffic coming through the F5 if one broker is down it will direct to the other. |
Only if you've specifically configured it to do so. By default, it will split the traffic 50/50 between the available end points.
madrox wrote: |
So what about message queue based messages is my question? what happens then? |
If a message arrives and the broker fails before it can be processed, the message will sit on the queue manager until the broker is successfully restarted.
If more messages are sent to the downed broker, the messages will continue to pile up until the broker is successfully restarted.
If both the broker and it's associated queue manager crash, the messages will pile up on the transmit queue at the sending end until the queue manager is restored.
If you try and prevent this by putting the queue managers in a cluster so messages are sent to the still-running queue manager the cluster will fail to work even under normal circumstances because you have 2 queue managers with the same name in the cluster and this will break the cluster when you try and create it. _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
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
|
|
|
|