| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Can NNSY definitions work independently? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| JYama |
 Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: Can NNSY definitions work independently? |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 281
|
Hi, all,
I don't like this kind of topic to discuss, but I need information related to MQSI v1.1 migration. 
I understand that this is not recommended but if the client would want to use 'New Era stuff'(NNSY), can it work independently work from 'IBM stuff'?
In other words, does NNSY definitions require message flows including Neon nodes to invoke the NNSY definitions?
Many thanks in advance,
Regards, |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Um.
The client really requires reimplementing everything, as the requirements wrapped around the transformations have surely changed since the NNSY transformations were originally written.
I bet this is why you hate to raise the question, too... 
As to whether NNSY sells a product that will allow you to migrate these transformations into a "modern" engine, that runs in a standalone mode... I can't say. I don't know NNSY's products.
I'm well within extraordinary tolerances of 100% sure that IBM does not sell or support such a product.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JYama |
| Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 281
|
Well, actually one of our clients is still using MQSIv1.1 and finally decided to migrate it to the latest v6.1.
First, I wanted to understand the work volume required by this migration.
Second, I'd like to discuss a way to ease it and minimize the migration cost.
I thought this would be the easiest and cheapest approach;
if NNSY would work without any message flows, we might only focus on NNSY side, which meant that this migration would be done only Neon DB import&Export without developing message flows to invoke NNSY.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
I have done some work in the past and was able to "document" the formats based on the export data, I never continued the work as there was no interest.
You say your customer is still on MQSI v1.1 , why don't they keep that and install v6.1 along side without NNSY?
If the old stuff has been around that long, keep it until it runs out and gradually migrate streams to v6.1
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| JYama wrote: |
First, I wanted to understand the work volume required by this migration.
Second, I'd like to discuss a way to ease it and minimize the migration cost. |
There is no migration path, so everything has to be written from scratch.
Well... There is a migration path, but it's a lot more costly than reimplementing, I think.
You would have to migrate the 1.1 stuff to 2.0, and then to 2.1, and then to 5 and then to 6, and then to 6.1. Well... You might be able to skip v5.
Given this, you don't really have a migration effort and so you've minimized the migration cost... the cost is all "new project" work. You need to analyze requirements, create architectures, create designs, plan implementations, and implement.
And then start the client down the road of keeping up with regular maintenance, so that they don't run unsupported software. It's a risk proposition.
Also, given this, Michael is right... Keep running the v1.1 stuff until it breaks badly - but hopefully you can retire it in place of the v6.1 stuff first.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JYama |
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 281
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
You would have to migrate the 1.1 stuff to 2.0, and then to 2.1, and then to 5 and then to 6, and then to 6.1. Well... You might be able to skip v5.
|
Thank you very much for your comments.
I was thinking that the migration path would be the 1.1 to 2.1, and then to 6.0 or 6.1. So I assumed that it would require only one temporary migration environment with MQSIv2.1. But you mentioned it would require huge number of temporary migration envs such as 2.0, 2.1, and 6.0.
This is too demanding....
Now I understand it's 'not easy' and need a lot of analysis and preparation before actual work. 
Although I haven't experienced it yet, curiously, I'm surrounded by this kind of migration from 'ancient versions' these days.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I don't think you can go from 1.1 to 2.1, but I'm not positive.
You can, I guess, go from 2.1 to v6.
But you can't go from 2.1 to v6.1. So to get to v6.1, you need at least a 2.1 and a v6 environment.
And, even said, you still need to retest and revalidate and... likely, make changes... at each migration step.
It's really better to treat it as a reimplementation than a migration. You can maybe use the original source as a set of requirements - but it's very unlikely that the process has been that static for as long as five years. Even if one end point has been that static, the other probably hasn't. And every system I know of that is at least five years old - if you start talking to the people who really use it... you find out how much of their time is spent working around the limitations of the implementation.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JYama |
| Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 281
|
Yes, I think that redesigning should be easier and cheaper.
I have no idea what's going to happen because it's my client's decision...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
