| Author |
Message
|
| vc1981 |
 Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject: How MQ Thick(FAT) Client is different from MQ Server |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 46
|
Hi ,
Can somebody please let me know as to how MQ thick client differs from MQ thin client and MQ server .
I am more so confused between MQ thick client and a MQ server , because in the MQ Primer i read that MQ thick (FAT) client can have queue manager created on it .
Kindly advise !
Regards,
Vc
_________________
Regards ,
VC |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| wschutz |
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vc1981 |
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 46
|
not exactly .....
I heard from one of the application team that they have a thick client of IBM websphere Series installed on their server . So wanted to understand what it meant .....
Also i happen to read in the MQ Primer that
"Fat clients have a local queue manager"
So was wondering as to how a FAT(Thick) client is different from a MQ Server .
_________________
Regards ,
VC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
It's not a widely used term.
Presumably, the MQPrimer meant that a "fat" client was a client application that connected to a queue manager that happened to be on the local machine - but still used client bindings. Or maybe they just meant any program that uses Server bindings.
As to what "one of the application team" meant, generally I doubt they know what they were saying. Again, it's not a widely used term and it's not terribly meaningful. An application either uses a client connection or a server connection - where the client connection terminates isn't terribly important.
You can get improved stability from a client connection if the queue manager is on the same machine - as you don't have to worry about external networking factors - but you're still using a client connection and it's still going to be less reliable than a server connection.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Jeff as they are talking about WAS (read server) could they possibly mean the restricted use MQServer version part of WAS 5.x ?
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Anything's possible.
I haven't ever seen the term used, so I don't know what people who would use it might mean.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
| In MQWorkflow, thick client can be configured using QMGR. Both thick client and fat client are widely used in workflow terminology but I am pretty sure MQ Primer doesn't refer to these. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vc1981 |
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 46
|
Thanks for the responses !
Well .. MQ primer does refer to fat clients : under the heading "Clients and Servers"
"
Clients and Servers
MQSeries distinguishes clients and servers. Before you install MQSeries on a distributed
platform you have to decide if the workstation will be an MQSeries client, an MQSeries server, or
both. With MQSeries for Windows a new term was introduced, the leaf node (described later).
There are two kinds of clients:
• Slim client or MQSeries client
• Fat client
Fat clients have a local queue manager; slim clients don't.
So does that mean FAT Client is nothing but a MQ sever binded with some application .... !
"
_________________
Regards ,
VC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
I guess the point the Primer is trying to make is that you can have three "usage" configurations:
1. application bound to a local MQ server (bindings mode)
2. application using a MQ client on a machine that has no MQ server on it (client mode)
3. application using a MQ client on a machine that has a MQ servier on it (still client mode).
Its not clear exactly why the primer is making a distinction here ... from the applications perspective (2) and (3) are the same, but (3) is probably a tad faster. But if you have (3), there's no reason why you wouldn't do (1).
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| vc1981 wrote: |
So does that mean FAT Client is nothing but a MQ sever binded with some application .... !
|
If an application is "binded" to a queue manager that is (IMHO) taken to mean it's using a server connection to reach a local queue manager (a bindings connection in Java terminolgy I think - but only think). Obviously this restricts it to using this local queue manager, but there are reasons why you'd do this.
If the application is using a client connection then it can connect equally well to local or remote queue managers. There are again reasons why you'd do this too.
What this document appears to be doing is drawing a distinction between the 2 client scenarios, calling a local connection "Fat" and a remote connection "Slim". I remain unconvinced that the distinction is entirely meaningful, and is certainly not in common usage amongst the distributed community. Or the bits of it I talk to! 
My 2 cents (0.01587 euros if you prefer). But still 1.06 pence round here. 
(Subject to market fluctuations of course)
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
