| Author |
Message
|
| Inforz |
 Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 3:57 am Post subject: Is it possible to implement this proposed MQ architecture ? |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 139
Location: Chennai, India
|
We need to design an MQ architecture which is very highly available. For which we have a proposed solution which is as follows.
In a normal MQ HA, during a MQ failover, instead of two queue managers, all the requests will be sent through a single available queue manager. In our design, during a fail over, a third queue manager (which is initially down) which is also in the cluster, needs to be brought up automatically.
In case of failback, bringing the third queue manager down need not be automatic and can be done manually.
So can this design be implemented successfully? If yes, please explain the same in detailed steps.
Thanks in advance, |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
It's entirely possible to implement this.
I think you will find that the time it takes to bring up the third queue manager is greater than zero.
So I do not believe that implementing this will meet your requirement.
You should, instead, have three active-passive qmgrs running at all times. If one of them fails over, then you still have two to provide service.
And you should do this with MQ v7 multi-instance qmgrs and v7 MQ clients using automatic reconnect options with a CCDT that knows how to connect to all three.
Then you will have minimum interruption of all application connections and minimum interruption of mq service.
And the minute you say "we can't use multi-instance because", that is the reason you go back to management and say "we can't be highly available because". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
If you can't use Multi Instance QMs (no NSFv4 in your shop, Windows QMs can't be on Domain Controllers in your shop, all clients and connecting QMs won't be MQ 7.0.1.4 on day one, etc), then the objectives can be reached using classic H.A. solutions for making the QMs highly available, like VCS, MSCS, HACMP, etc.
The conversation takes a completely different turn if these are z/OS Queue Managers you are talking about.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:25 am Post subject: Re: Is it possible to implement this proposed MQ architectur |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Inforz wrote: |
| In a normal MQ HA, during a MQ failover, instead of two queue managers, all the requests will be sent through a single available queue manager. In our design, during a fail over, a third queue manager (which is initially down) which is also in the cluster, needs to be brought up automatically. |
If you want very highly available you don't want requests through a single available queue manager.
Note also that "cluster" has multiple uses. If you have a WMQ cluster for workload balancing that's one thing. If you have an HA cluster (using as my most worthy associate has postulated VCS, MSCS, HACMP and so forth) then that's a different thing.
You can use HA for active/active on the clustered queue managers, or active/passive with this 3rd queue manager, or any other HA pattern that meets your needs.
Unless you're talking about z/OS.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Auto-reconnect feature:
WebSphere MQ classes for Java - Not supported
Managed XMS and managed .NET clients: C#, Visual Basic, Not supported
Also assumes that your client applications can use a CCDT which is possible but still uncommon with JMS and WAS applications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
It is not unusual for new functions to be unsupported in some environments.
It would be unusual for those functions to stay unsupported. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Inforz |
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 139
Location: Chennai, India
|
Hi,
guys thanks a lot for the valuable suggestions. To be more specific I have given a description below. And the environment is SUSE Linux.
We have a new architecture for which I have given a diagramatic representation. This architecture is yet to be implemented so would probably be implementing in WMQ v7, WMB v7.
Our main target is
1. The incoming messages would be either to server1 or server2 to the cluster queue ClusQ1. So according to the load the request needs to be routed (server1 or server2). That is only one queue ClusQ1 that is exposed for incoming messages (dotted lines)
2. After receiving in either one of the ClusQ1, the message will be sent to WTX and processed. After that it need to be sent to (one of the)ClusQ2 queue of the four other servers according to load balancing.
The idea of this design is to make system stable and highly available.
Please let me know if its possible. If so please let me know the pros and cons of the architecture.
Also please let me know if any additional functionalities that would make the system much stable and reliable.
Thanks,
[img]http://www.mypicx.com/04172011/mq/[/img][/img] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Inforz |
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 139
Location: Chennai, India
|
| Please goto the link I gave at the last to view the architecture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Inforz |
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 139
Location: Chennai, India
|
[Img]https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/6VVFCpIOmItEsd1t7owEAsp9FO4pfW0XFVTZTTcTWgw?feat=email[/Img]
Pls goto this image if the previous one is not clear |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Inforz |
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 139
Location: Chennai, India
|
| MQ experts/Tech Architects please help me thru this.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| Inforz wrote: |
| MQ experts/Tech Architects please help me thru this.. |
Please bear in mind that what you are asking the 'MQ experts/Tech Architects' to help you through is normally a chargeable activity for them - they are more than prepared to help out on the board but expecting them to QA a design and sign off on it 'for free' is perhaps pushing the boundaries a bit too far.
_________________
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: Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| exerk wrote: |
| Please bear in mind that what you are asking the 'MQ experts/Tech Architects' to help you through is normally a chargeable activity for them |
(We're also volunteers with day jobs, so there's no SLA on our replies)
I'd also wonder at what your management are going to say if, when asked how confident you are of this design, your reply is:
"I posted it on the Internet and this bunch of total strangers said it would be fine"
I urge you to consider buying a couple of days of consultancy. It's possible (with no disrespect to yourself) there are elements in your requirements which you've neglected to mention or indeed overlooked. Someone experienced on the ground will pick up on these.
If nothing else it gives your management a real person to blame other than you. 
My tip, for what it's worth: separate the workflow and how you're going to scale it (with WMQ clusters and so forth) from how you're going to make the system highly available.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9470
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
The OP asks: Is it possible to implement this proposed MQ architecture ?
Build it. Demonstrate to yourself and your management that either a: it works; or b: it doesn't. This is called proof-of-concept. Our opinions are just that: opinions.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Build it. Demonstrate to yourself and your management that either a: it works; or b: it doesn't. This is called proof-of-concept. Our opinions are just that: opinions. |
Very valid point. If the OP is uncertain, hesitant or unclear at any point then a few days of consultancy may be valid.
Likewise valid is shouting "Banzai" and going for it in a sandbox-like environment. Experimentation is (nearly) always a good thing.
Less valid is shouting "Bonsai" and throwing a small tree in any environment.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WMBDEV1 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sentinel
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 888
Location: UK
|
| Vitor wrote: |
Experimentation is (nearly) always a good thing.
|
Slightly off topic..... but i'm still trying to convince my wife of this fact without much luck  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
