| Author |
Message
|
| amisinai |
 Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:15 am Post subject: Dynamic loopback |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 10
Location: Israel
|
Hi
I want to create a loopback function that gets 2 queue managers names and passes a message from the first to the second and back to the first.
the restriction is that I want to do it without any static remote queues definitions.
There is one option that maybe possible... writting directly to the transmission queue, using a transmission header that contains the original queue manager name.
Can it work?
Is there another\better way?
Is writting directly to the transmission queue can be hazardous?
Avichai |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:26 am Post subject: Re: Dynamic loopback |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| amisinai wrote: |
| Is writting directly to the transmission queue can be hazardous? |
It's not best practice certainly.
a) Why no static queues? What's the requirement?
b) Why not use allow MQ to resolve the names automatically?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| amisinai |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 10
Location: Israel
|
Hi Vitor,
a) We have about 50 queue managers. We want a simple way to check the connections between them. For all the checks we need, we'll have to define 200-300 queues.
b) Is it possible (I don't understand)... can I put a message that will go to another queue manager and back to the original (to a temporary queue)?
Thanks
Avichai |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
It's very very very difficult to write directly to the transmission queue SUCCESSFULLY.
You have to build the transmission header correctly, and that's at least annoying, if not actually difficult.
It's very very easy to configure a default route from one queue manager to another.
It's very very easy to configure a set of queue manager aliases that cause a message to get moved from one queue manager to another and then back again.
Everything you need to know to find out how to do both of those things is contained in this message.
Happy Searching.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
Everything you need to know to find out how to do both of those things is contained in this message.
|
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| amisinai wrote: |
| We want a simple way to check the connections between them. |
Have you considered monitoring the channels? 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| amisinai |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 10
Location: Israel
|
Hi
I'm trying to build a small, on-demand, monitoring application... I'm trying to cut back on definitions (even simple ones)...
Is it possible (make a loopback without definitions)?
Avichai
_________________
Avichai |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
MQ v6 has functions for tracing routes.
It's not possible to configure routes without making definitions.
It's significantly more useful to monitor channels actively and generate notifications when something goes wrong, then to rely on someone deciding to run some application to check whether channels are okay.
It's significantly easier to check the status of channels along a given route manually, when needed, than to run a program that will send a message and "decide" if the channels aren't working.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| amisinai wrote: |
| I'm trying to build a small, on-demand, monitoring application... |
You're also, in part, trying to reinvent the wheel. There's a lot of software that already does this kind of function.
As jefflowrey and I have both pointed out it's far better to monitor channels then do smoke tests. That way you're told there's a problem and where it is, rather than thinking there's a problem and trying to trace it.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| leongor |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 13 May 2002
Posts: 264
Location: Israel
|
It's not seems to be very difficult to send message that contains transmission header (I mean additional one, not that is created automatically).
Maybe to play a little with a context. Eventually there is an effort to get it working only for the first time 
_________________
Regards.
Leonid.
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| leongor wrote: |
It's not seems to be very difficult to send message that contains transmission header (I mean additional one, not that is created automatically).
Maybe to play a little with a context. Eventually there is an effort to get it working only for the first time |
There's absolutely no reason to do this, other than a pathological desire to do things the wrong way.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guest
|
We have about 50 queue managers. We want a simple way to check the connections between them. For all the checks we need, we'll have to define 200-300 queues.
You will need Sender/Receiver channels (and transmission queues) to each of the 50 qmgrs, too. Each will require a transmission queue to get back to your application, if one doesn't already exist.
If the reply doesn't come back, then what?
You could simply build a qmgr/remote queue definition table into your application. Wait! This sounds like a Distribution List.
50 remote queue definitions (for your app to MQOPEN)
100 channel defs (to and from your qmgr)
50 transmission queues (to each of the 50 qmgrs)
50 transmission queues (from remote qmgrs back to your qmgr)
reply-to-queus (dynamically created by your app)
As stated in other replies to your post, this wheel already exists: a variety of vendors market automation/performance monitoring software. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| leongor |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 13 May 2002
Posts: 264
Location: Israel
|
I think that the question is not about generic monitoring. I mean there is no benefits to write this program and then define 1000 definitions in MQ.
It looks like the guy wants it for some existing infrastructure, probably not very large and there is always option to get a monitoring product
_________________
Regards.
Leonid.
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
The only definitions you save by writing directly to the transmission queue are the QREMOTES, and that's only about 100 definitions.
All of the channels are presumed to already exist.
And even without writing directly to the xmitq, you can still do this without the QREMOTES, using a default route to each queue manager.
And even then, MQ v6 already has route tracing facilities, and commands to execute a route trace.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| supreeth |
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 90
Location: London
|
I am totally lost on the purpose as to why u have this requirement. I am amazed at the fact that all the 50 qmgrs are chained in a circular fashion. why in the world would anyone have such an architecture. Y dint u think of cluster as an option? Thankfully, u dont have a star connection where each qmgr is inter connected
Well, If checking the health of the qmgr n its resource connectivity ( ip, listener etc ) is ur reqmt ... u can do that by having all the connection details in a config file and using a standalone program to connect to each one of them at scheduled intervals.
Cannot think of a simple solution if u r looking only for a qmgr-qmgr health check route.
| Quote: |
| And even without writing directly to the xmitq, you can still do this without the QREMOTES, using a default route to each queue manager. |
What is a default route ??? I dont beleive I am hearing this concept for the first time 
cheerz!!!
supreeth
_________________
Supreeth Gururaj
IBM Certified WMQ Solution Expert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
