| Author |
Message
|
| Challenger |
 Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:51 am Post subject: Challenge Question - 04 / 2009 |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 115
|
An organisation uses a single WMQ cluster to link all it's applications. Messages are a mixture of datagrams and request/replies. There is no load balancing, with a single instance of any given application and all settings left to default with the exception of default queue persistence, which is set to "persistent". The cluster is made up of v6 queue managers, running on 8 AIX and 16 Windows machines. Each queue manager is named uniquely for the server it run on (so Server A hosts QMA) and each application uses a uniquely named queue (so the Sales application uses a queue called Q.Sales).
A change is planned to bring in load balancing, where a single application will now run 3 instances on servers A, B and C rather than just A. Given that each of the queue managers QMA/B/C already participate in the cluster, what additional WMQ objects (if any) are needed? If the 3 servers are all AIX machines, what appplication changes (if any) are needed to make them load balance?
For extra points what (if anything) would you change about the cluster to get extra value from it?
Challenger |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:59 am Post subject: Re: Challenge Question - 04 / 2009 |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| Challenger wrote: |
Given that each of the queue managers QMA/B/C already participate in the cluster, what additional WMQ objects (if any) are needed? |
This is an odd challenge question. Create Q.Sales on QMB and QMC, cluster and set the CLWLUSEQ to ANY.
| Challenger wrote: |
If the 3 servers are all AIX machines, what appplication changes (if any) are needed to make them load balance?
|
Technically, none are needed.
| Challenger wrote: |
For extra points what (if anything) would you change about the cluster to get extra value from it?
|
Get rid of the Windows servers?
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WMBDEV1 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:35 am Post subject: Re: Challenge Question - 04 / 2009 |
|
|
Sentinel
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 888
Location: UK
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Challenger wrote: |
For extra points what (if anything) would you change about the cluster to get extra value from it?
|
Get rid of the Windows servers? |
Ha ha... Maybe add high availability (HACMP) for each of the QMs to reduce the the a message can be marooned?
Last edited by WMBDEV1 on Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| Challenger wrote: |
| ...what application changes (if any) are needed to make them load balance? |
May need a database-element redesign. Seen a few cases where scaling was prevented due to non-concurrent use limitations of a DB by multiple instances of an application.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| sebastianhirt |
| Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: Challenge Question - 04 / 2009 |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 620
Location: Germany
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Challenger wrote: |
For extra points what (if anything) would you change about the cluster to get extra value from it?
|
Get rid of the Windows servers? |
What's wrong with Windows? 
Maybe what the Challenger wanted to hear, was that one might add weights to the cluster channels. This would take into account that the machines might not be equally strong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sanapalask |
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Posts: 1
|
| QM's A B C are already part of the cluster. So there is no need to do anything more for LB as MQ takes care of the Loadbalancing, once the QMs are part of the cluster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| sanapalask wrote: |
| QM's A B C are already part of the cluster. So there is no need to do anything more for LB as MQ takes care of the Loadbalancing, once the QMs are part of the cluster. |
However, it is possible to 'bias' the workload towards a more powerful system. Load balancing using the 'vanilla' cluster load balancing algorithm may mean messages are evenly split, but it's not necessarily of much use if one system only has the horsepower to process 1 message for every 4, that a more powerful system can handle.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| sumit |
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:15 am Post subject: Re: Challenge Question - 04 / 2009 |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Challenger wrote: |
..and each application uses a uniquely named queue (so the Sales application uses a queue called Q.Sales).
|
Application target queue should present on QMA, QMB and QMC. So, for example Q.Sales (or others) has to be there on all the 3 queue managers.
| Challenger wrote: |
| what appplication changes (if any) are needed to make them load balance? |
Connection name in application needs modification if it's not using 'localhost' (assuming application is running on local server).
If application is sending messages, then a common database should be there (probably SAN) to restrict sending duplicate messages.
| Challenger wrote: |
For extra points what (if anything) would you change about the cluster to get extra value from it?
|
Defbind on queue level should be 'NotFixed'.
All queues should be exposed to cluster.
Default CLWLWGHT property will allow load balancing, so no changes required until requirement is to distribute uneven load among queue managers.
_________________
Regards
Sumit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sumit |
| Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:19 am Post subject: Re: Challenge Question - 04 / 2009 |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 398
|
| Challenger wrote: |
| ...16 Windows machines... |
Seems no role of Windows machines.
_________________
Regards
Sumit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Challenger |
| Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 115
|
| It's nearly the end of the month so if you've any comments to make, make them soon or miss out on your chance to win! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Monk |
| Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 282
|
| Quote: |
| For extra points what (if anything) would you change about the cluster to get extra value from it? |
Since you have made your MQ Highly available. Make your applications also highly available.
_________________
Thimk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Challenger |
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 115
|
Well the month is over and thank you to everyone who's contributed.
There have been a number of good points made, but there must be a winner. After careful debate between the judges, I declare sumit to be the winner for mentioning the use of "notfixed" binding. An honourable mention goes to PeterPotkay though I don't believe this results in a prize!
Unusually, it's also been decided to award last place to Monk for his claim that the WMQ Cluster described is Highly Available. As regular readers will know, WMQ clusters provide workload balancing not high availablity.
Again, thanks to everyone who participated!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sumit |
| Posted: Sun May 03, 2009 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 398
|
Hey.. thnx Judges..
_________________
Regards
Sumit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
