| Author |
Message
|
| kevinf2349 |
 Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:24 am Post subject: DLQ - How best to handle them? |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
Ok folks....
I am a lone MQ certified person at our shop. We have MQ on z/OS (where my back ground is as a system programmer), AIX, UNIX, AS/400 and coming out the ying-yang on NT.
I have battled out Window people to get access to the Qmgrs on all platforms and have been successful (to a point) in getting this. I also have been granted Net-Op access to the development servers.
I have been a good boy and I monitor the DLQ on z/OS and clear them out from time to time when the occasion calls for it.
My question is this........
Which would way would people recommend for administering/monitoring the DLQs on the other platforms?
a) Make all DLQs remote to a central DLQ specific qmgr. In other words the queue manager would hold the DLQ for ALL the other queue managers. (Probably on z/OS for access and availability)
or
b) Run a runmqdlq on each server to drop the dead messages we aren't interested in and then send the remainder to another queue (possibly remote and possibly on z/OS).
Option a) would give me chance to see all the Dead messages, but option b) means less message traffic. Option b) would mean that I would have to rollout a bat file to every server whereas option a) could be defined in our site standards pretty quickly and easily.
How are other sites handling this? Do sites tend to have MQ folks that are platform specific? The DLQ handler utility is all well and good and I realise that most of the time the action to take will depend upon the application and/or business need but our main concern is noticing that we are getting them in the first place!
Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
In your scenario a: What if the reason messages are going on the DLQ on a distributed QM is that there is an issue with the z/OS QM...?
Remote DLQs are not usually recommended.
You should also really buy a monitoring tool. Your network is large enough, and your need for centralized administration is clear enough.
Then you can actually monitor all of those remote DLQs from a central point, without needing to roll out custom scripts to each QM - just a monitoring agent.
The contact admin Contact Admin suite is really cool.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
Jeff
Thanks for the reply. Put simply the reason for not getting a monitoring agent is.......drum roll.... No budget! 
I do take your point about communication to the z/OS queue manager and that is definately a consideration I will need to look at. At the moment our z/OS is 24/7 but our firewall and core switches have caused problems in the past. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
Aren't DLQ messages a realtivily rare occurance?
Can't you solve most DLQ issues without even logging onto the box? All you need to do is browse the DLQ Header 99% of the time.
I don't see how a DLQ handler is needed. Messages that go to my DLQs need human intervention to be remedied (Q doesn't exist, Q is full cuz the getting app took a dirt nap, etc). Anything that can be automated should probably be fixed ahead of time in the first place.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
Peter,
Yes, they are pretty rare and to be honest they aren't causing me any issues just yet. What prompted the whole thing was that I was asked to take a look at a totally unrelated problem with an Windows MQ application and while I was poking around I noticed that the DLQ on the queue manager had about 80 messages in it, some of them almost 2 years old.
Maybe all I need is to trigger the DLQ when the depth creeps up?
Hmmmmmm I may give that some thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
