ASG
IBM
Zystems
Cressida
Icon
Netflexity
 
  MQSeries.net
Search  Search       Tech Exchange      Education      Certifications      Library      Info Center      SupportPacs      LinkedIn  Search  Search                                                                   FAQ  FAQ   Usergroups  Usergroups
 
Register  ::  Log in Log in to check your private messages
 
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support RSS Feed - Message Broker Support

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral IBM MQ SupportMQ Client vs MQ Server

Post new topicReply to topic
MQ Client vs MQ Server View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
BBM
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: MQ Client vs MQ Server Reply with quote

Master

Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 217
Location: London, UK

Hi,

We are currently using Microsoft Biztalk 2004 as our messaging engine. Biztalk's interface to MQ is via a com+ component on the MQ server - which to MQ appears to be just an application.

Due to various known issues with COM+ Microsoft have decided to use the IBM MQ XA client to connect, in the new version of Biztalk (2006) - which I personally see as a good move.

My question is whether anyone knows any real difference in terms advantages/disadvantages of using the XA client to connect to a QM via a svrconn channel rather than directly connecting. The Biztalk server is just carrying out puts/gets.

We are concerned about performance and stability mainly and any differences that may affect our throughput/transactionality.

Cheers

BBM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zpat
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:01 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5687
Location: UK

We've had problems with MSCS clustering of the MQ queue manager with the Biztalk components. They don't always failover together.

I would prefer a proper MQ client connection although the XA client is chargeable of course. Let's hope their re-connection logic is up to the job and that they test it with non-Windows queue managers.

The biggest gain would be the removal of the Biztalk dependency on a Windows only platform queue manager.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 25838
Location: Texas, USA

If by "XA client" you mean the Extended Transactional Client rather than the normal client code, it offers many of the functional benefits of a binding connection (most obviously 2-phase commit!) over a client connection. The reason a normal client is more commonly used is down to price; ETC costs almost as much as a queue manager license while the normal client is free. Certainly the point of the ETC is to give the same transactionality over a client link as a direct connection.

The biggest problem with client over server is the infamous 2009 error - "client connection gone kinda funny for any number of reasons". As long as the application knows to sigh, count to 5 and reconnect (which is all it usually takes to resolve) you'll be fine.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
exerk
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:29 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6109

zpat wrote:
...I would prefer a proper MQ client connection although the XA client is chargeable of course...


The licensing should not be an issue as they already have that covered by the fact of an existing queue manager - which presumably they've 'paid' for - or am I misinterpreting the conditions?
_________________
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.



Last edited by exerk on Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:33 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 25838
Location: Texas, USA

exerk wrote:
zpat wrote:
...I would prefer a proper MQ client connection although the XA client is chargeable of course...


The licensing should not be an issue as they already have that covered by the fact of an existing queue manager - which presumably they've 'paid' for.


AFAIK the ETC isn't covered by the queue manager license but is seperately chargeable. Might depend on the deal I suppose....
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jefflowrey
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:34 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand Poobah

Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981

exerk wrote:
zpat wrote:
...I would prefer a proper MQ client connection although the XA client is chargeable of course...


The licensing should not be an issue as they already have that covered by the fact of an existing queue manager - which presumably they've 'paid' for - or am I misinterpreting the conditions?


Well. It's the same COST, but it's not the same LICENSE.

All questions about licensing should be directed to your IBM sales representative.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
exerk
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:37 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6109

Good point and well presented I should have been more accurate in my statement.
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:48 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 25838
Location: Texas, USA

jefflowrey wrote:

All questions about licensing should be directed to your IBM sales representative.


Which of course is the important point. The license covers what IBM says it covers when they sell it to you.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BBM
PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Master

Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 217
Location: London, UK

Hi,

Thanks for the replies. We are aware that the XA client will attract the same licence fee as the server product.

We too have seen the same issues with MSCS failover and the poor cluster awareness of the Biztalk MQ adapter.

Apparently, the new version of Biztalk will solve these issues...

If anyone has any other suggestions as to why a client may be defficient as opposed to a QM to QM connection i'd love to hear as we are one of the first adopters of this new Biztalk architecture...

Cheers

BBM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zpat
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:04 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5687
Location: UK

As long as Microsoft's client code does (optionally) MQGMO_CONVERT and use MQGMO_WAIT rather than "polling the queue" every few seconds and has adequate retry logic for MQRC 2009 or queue manager quiescing (MQGMO_FAIL_IF_QUIESCING), then it should be fine.

Can it run multi-threaded (on the same or different queues) for performance? Does it support multiple queue managers or is it limited to one. Does it persist connections or constantly re-connect, does it keep queues open or keep re-opening them?

All these things should be part of your evaluation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BBM
PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Master

Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 217
Location: London, UK

Thanks Zpat - that's given us food for thought...

I'm getting the impression from MS that they are as interested in our proof of concept as we are!

Cheers

BBM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Post new topicReply to topic Page 1 of 1

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral IBM MQ SupportMQ Client vs MQ Server
Jump to:



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP


Theme by Dustin Baccetti
Powered by phpBB 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Copyright MQSeries.net. All rights reserved.