Author |
Message
|
angka |
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: Limit Receiver channel connection |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 Posts: 406
|
Hi,
Is there a way to allow only one connection per receiver?
Thanks
Rgds. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mr Butcher |
Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Padawan
Joined: 23 May 2005 Posts: 1716
|
you need an exit (e.g. blockip or something similiar) _________________ Regards, Butcher |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
angka |
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 Posts: 406
|
Hi,
So there is no way you can configure in the Receiver Channel? Thanks. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mehedi |
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject: Limit number of SVRCONN channel connections |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 11 Nov 2001 Posts: 102 Location: PSTech
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jefflowrey |
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 19981
|
Not one single type of an MQ channel has an "out of the box" parameter that allows you to say "please do not create more than X instances of this particular channel".
You can, however, configure the queue manger to say "Please do not create more than Y instances of *any* channel". So you can say that MaxActiveChannels should never be more than 100 or 200 or etc.. and know that there will never be more than that many connections to the qmgr.
But it won't matter what kind of connection that is.
Unless you use an exit. _________________ I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PeterPotkay |
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001 Posts: 7722
|
jefflowrey wrote: |
Unless you use an exit. |
We use Capitalware's MQAUSX for this. Works great. _________________ Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jefflowrey |
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 19981
|
PeterPotkay wrote: |
We use Capitalware's MQAUSX for this. Works great. |
Really?
We do?
Interesting. _________________ I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PeterPotkay |
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001 Posts: 7722
|
By "we" I meant me and my queue managers here. I did not mean to imply we meant me and Jeff. _________________ Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jefflowrey |
Posted: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 19981
|
PeterPotkay wrote: |
By "we" I meant me and my queue managers here. I did not mean to imply we meant me and Jeff. |
I didn't mean to imply that either...
But it's a complicated word, this "we"....
 _________________ I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
angka |
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 20 Sep 2005 Posts: 406
|
Hi,
mehedi:I refering to MQ receiver.
Jefflowrey:controlling the max channel is not what i need.
Thanks all |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jefflowrey |
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002 Posts: 19981
|
angka wrote: |
Jefflowrey:controlling the max channel is not what i need. |
I understand that.
The only way to get it what you do need is to use an exit. _________________ I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|