| Author |
Message
|
| praveenchhangani |
 Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:25 am Post subject: Multiple SYSTEMS with 1 GROUP |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 192
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Hello everyone,
I am in the process of adding multiple workflow systems for a workflow group that already exists.
eg.
+ FMCGROUP
- FMCDFLT
- FMCSYS1
- FMCSYS2
- FMCSYS3
It appears from research conducted so far, that in order for one to achieve this, each system is going to be needing it's own queue manager.
What I would like to do is create new execution servers for each of the newly created systems, but have other things like the scheduling server, cleanup server ..etc be utilized from the FMCDFLT (default system). Is this possible, and are there any other things that need to be taken into consideration?
Secondly, is it a good idea to create separate Scheduling servers for each of the systems or just have the systems inherit from the default. The reason I ask of this is, what if the default system is down and the rest of the systems are up? If there is Scheduling server activity needed during the downtime of the default system; how would the other systems react to a situation like this?
Last, but not least; How much of an impact on performance is expected on an NT environment?
Any ideas/help would be very much appreciated.
Thanks,Praveen
_________________
Praveen K. Chhangani,
IBM Certified Solutions Designer -
MQ Workflow 3.4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jmac |
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:33 am Post subject: Re: Multiple SYSTEMS with 1 GROUP |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
| praveenchhangani wrote: |
Hello everyone,
I am in the process of adding multiple workflow systems for a workflow group that already exists.
eg.
+ FMCGROUP
- FMCDFLT
- FMCSYS1
- FMCSYS2
- FMCSYS3
It appears from research conducted so far, that in order for one to achieve this, each system is going to be needing it's own queue manager.
|
This is a true statement
| Quote: |
What I would like to do is create new execution servers for each of the newly created systems, but have other things like the scheduling server, cleanup server ..etc be utilized from the FMCDFLT (default system). Is this possible, and are there any other things that need to be taken into consideration? |
This is the way MQWF already works. The cleanup and scheduling server are only defined for the primary system in the system group
| Quote: |
Secondly, is it a good idea to create separate Scheduling servers for each of the systems or just have the systems inherit from the default. The reason I ask of this is, what if the default system is down and the rest of the systems are up? If there is Scheduling server activity needed during the downtime of the default system; how would the other systems react to a situation like this?
|
This is moot based on the fact that you can not have multiple scheduling (or cleanup) servers. Unless you actually stop the only scheduling server that is running (or it crashes which I don't believe I have ever seen) I don't see a problem.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED
Last edited by jmac on Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:35 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2002 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
I think for an additional system you CANNOT have scheduling server and cleanup server. All you can have is execution server and UPESs.
Venny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| praveenchhangani |
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2002 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 192
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Thank You.
You correct. Workflow only allows the addition of new Execution Server instances and UPES'es.
As this is perhaps one of the newest things we have been looking into, it arises concern on performance as well.
When I was first encountered this, I was under the impression that there might be the possibility of a system performance problem. However the the concept of "Hot Pooling," makes me feel that this might not necessarily be the case. (Of course, there are several other elements involved)
Since the execution server acts a database client and communicates with the database server; Each of the execution server's have thier own individual connections to the database server more formally referred to as Hot pooling.
The idea of having multiple systems is very appealing as it will help eliminate a lot of my customers' issues during system downtime. At anyrate, if anyone out there has any other tips or links to documentation other than what we get on the CD's/books, please let me know.
Appreciate all the ideas/suggestions folks!
Thanks,Praveen
_________________
Praveen K. Chhangani,
IBM Certified Solutions Designer -
MQ Workflow 3.4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ratan |
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2002 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
Your workflow servers performance increases linearly with each additional system.
However as you mentioned that your platform is NT and were concerned with downtime, I was wondering what measures have you taken for database availability ( failover).
I am working on this solution myself ( platform win2000) and have found so far that the only real solution to workwith is the Microsoft CLuster Server (MSCS), but I have no Idea about the reliability and performance of MSCS. If you have employed any similar solution for database availability please let me know.
-Thnx Laze |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kriersd |
| Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2002 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 22 Jul 2002
Posts: 209
Location: IA, USA
|
lazeknight
Jmac
"Your workflow servers performance increases linearly with each additional system".
What type of performance increase can be expected if one was to add an additional system on the same hardware. Here is my issue. We UPES out of the WF system for just about everything. When a UPES call is directed back to the Workflow server via the EXEXMLINPTQ. The same EXEXMLINPUTQ is used to send xml to the Workflow system to start a new process. My concern is that with enough growth we may over load the EXEXMLINPUTQ. My thought was to add an additional system to open up and additional "EXEXMLINPUTQ" into Workflow. I would use one system for all UPES activity and the other system for all other request.
I see a big advantage with this configuration, however, I am looking for the disadvantage.
Please comment!
_________________
Dave Krier
IBM WebSphere MQ Workflow V3.4 Solution Designer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2002 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Dave:
Putting an additional server on the same hardware can be counterproductive of course. From a performance point of view, if the system is running near capacity, an additional system can not help, and in my opinion it will hurt. If on the other hand, the system is not near capacity AND the ES are spending significant time waiting on events (I/O, etc) then adding an additional server might help.
As to your idea about a separate server for UPES, there is no reason why you should not do this. You could use a separate QM/Q for your UPES on a separate box. I really don't know a lot about MQ Clustering, but I believe that you should be able to have this QM/Q process all UPES activity and the response would be sent via ReplyQM/Q to the MQWF system.
Realize, that I am just thinking here, this is not anything I have done, but it seems to make sense to me.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kriersd |
| Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2002 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 22 Jul 2002
Posts: 209
Location: IA, USA
|
Thanks John.
I agree.. This sounds like one solution to the problem, however, is this the best solution. Will this solution still allow us to scale.
I'll keep everyone posted on my progress in our lab room..
Thanks for the help John.. 
_________________
Dave Krier
IBM WebSphere MQ Workflow V3.4 Solution Designer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ratan |
| Posted: Wed Oct 16, 2002 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
From what you wrote I understand that you were talking about adding an additional workflow system on the same server and that system will take care of the UPES requests. I dont see any performance growth achieved by such a configuration.
I like Jmac's Idea of having an additional server for UPES activities. This would be perfectly scalable and significant growth in performance.
-Laze |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| cowboy2003 |
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:49 am Post subject: MSMC |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 22
|
| The MSMC is pretty stable and widely used. I used it for SQl server failover. It is great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ratan |
| Posted: Fri Feb 27, 2004 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
Well "SQL Server" and "MSCS". Do I see any similarity with them ?
Do you have any reports with DB2 or MQ ?
_________________
-Ratan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
