| Author |
Message
|
| heath |
 Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:33 am Post subject: question about setmqaut |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 21
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Hi guys. I have searched this forum but did not get an answer for the question I have about setmqaut:
Lets say I have a queue manager called MYQM1 and I run the following command on it:
| Code: |
setmqaut -m MYQM1 -t qmgr +all -g group1
|
Will this command give group1 access to all queue manager objects (queues, channels) or do I have to run the setmqaut seperately for each object?
Thanks,
H |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| vennela |
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
| You have to run seperately for each object. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
setmqaut is a rather terrible command, because indeed you have to give permission for each object individually.
I used to have a small vbscript I wrote that was able to do such things and more, it is now lost, but you should consider taking the time to make one for yourself; it will save you a lot of time in the future... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| hopsala wrote: |
| setmqaut is a rather terrible command, because indeed you have to give permission for each object individually. |
Except that since a middle (3? 4? 5?) CSD of 5.3, you can use wildcards to grant priviledges based on names... so SYSTEM.* or etc.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
indeed jeff, and thank heavens for it. My main complaint is that there is no graphical interface, and thus no way (without proprietary coding) to centrally control security settings...
Also, to generate a backup of security settings and then re-instate it into your QM, you have to use a support pac or write your own prog; this should have been supplied with MQ as-is, not as a detached extention. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
| Quote: |
| Also, to generate a backup of security settings and then re-instate it into your QM, you have to use a support pac or write your own prog; this should have been supplied with MQ as-is, not as a detached extention. |
Last I looked, this is supported and shipped with WMQ:
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
| Quote: |
| and thus no way (without proprietary coding) to centrally control security settings... |
Also, with WMQ v6, you can write write pcf programs to send "set authority" commands to the command server which allow a central control of security settings.
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
about the "-s" parm, I bow in gratitute, thanks!
concerning the v6, as opposed to IBM way of thinking, I do not believe that giving the user the possibility to customize is paramount to giving him an already implemented interface that does the trick; when purchasing a product, I do not believe one should have to spend time writing code.
True, as time progresses mq becomes more and more "complete" - a better explorer, pcf commands for z/os, ssl security etc - but this should have been done sooner. And what about linear logging housekeeping? how dare IBM have a product in the market when for years its most basic function needs manual handling? (or proprietary written automatic handling) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Have you used the support pack for linear log housekeeping ?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
I have a few years back, it proved to be a bit buggy so we rewrote it. I have also used the housekeeping pack for MVS, which was awful and didn't work at all, had to debug it and after a few weeks of use scratched it.
I know this is not the common opinion here, but I do not find support packs to be serious solutions to the problems an MQ admin is presented every day.
Seems that IBM, at some point in their corporate timeline, decided to go by the microsoft software model: build a bad, incomplete, buggy prog (as MQ was in 1998 when I first started working with it), let your users suffer for years on end doing a messy (and bloody) sort of QA for you, and improve the product bit by bit. So while MQ is an OK product now, it still much needs improvement, and in past it was terrible. (example, only in MQ6.0 can one see who connects to your QM, how basic is that??) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
