| Author |
Message
|
| mgrabinski |
 Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 7:19 am Post subject: very large messages |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 16 Oct 2001
Posts: 246
Location: Katowice, Poland
|
Hi!
I'm currently in a project that requires transfer of very large files (60GB and more). All communications in the project will be handled by MQSeries, but some analyst want to send the largest files via FTP. It's inconsistent in my opinion, but they fear that transfer via MQ could be extremely long.
Have any of you transferd such large portions of data? Can you share your experience? I will of course do some tests, but I would like to know if any of you used MQ for transfering large files in production and how it behaved.
Thank yu in advance for any posts
_________________
Marcin Grabinski <>< |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Tibor |
| Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 8:23 am Post subject: Re: very large messages |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 20 May 2001
Posts: 1033
Location: Hungary
|
| mgrabinski wrote: |
| ...a project that requires transfer of very large files (60GB and more). All communications in the project will be handled by MQSeries, but some analyst want to send the largest files via FTP. It's inconsistent in my opinion, but they fear that transfer via MQ could be extremely long. |
I have to fear, too, independently by transfer type 
Seriously, my *biggest* transfer was 300 MByte (30*10 MB, segmented). MQ has a disadvantage, you need a lot of plus storage for the messages and logs.
IMHO, the network speed won't be slower remarkable than FTP.
Tibor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RogerLacroix |
| Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 3264
Location: London, ON Canada
|
Hi,
I have done 2-3 GB file transfer without any problem or performance hit (compared to native FTP).
The best selling point you can use is "Guaranteed Delivery".
Ask your colleagues how they would feel if a 60 GB FTP file transfer fail at 59.5 GB and they had to restart from the beginning. Ask them if this is an acceptable business practice.
I can almost guarantee that they will all jump on your "bandwagon". <grin>
later
Roger Lacroix
Enterprise Architect
_________________
Capitalware: Transforming tomorrow into today.
Connected to MQ!
Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mgrabinski |
| Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2002 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 16 Oct 2001
Posts: 246
Location: Katowice, Poland
|
I am strongly lobbying for MQ in this project 
In the meantime I did some testing to compare transfer rates. I've sent 10GB via MQ (10 000 persistent messages 1MB each). The total transfer time was ca. 5400 seconds. The same file sent via FTP took 5000 seconds.
So FTP was quicker only by 7 minutes! 7 minutes on 10GB is not worth getting rid of MQ assured delivery. Now I have to sell it to the analysts on the project
_________________
Marcin Grabinski <>< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| leongor |
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2002 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 13 May 2002
Posts: 264
Location: Israel
|
If z/OS isn't involved here, you shoud think about using reference messages.
Thus you have all the advantages of MQSeries and probably will get close performance to FTP.
_________________
Regards.
Leonid.
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mgrabinski |
| Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2002 3:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 16 Oct 2001
Posts: 246
Location: Katowice, Poland
|
I know about reference messages, they would be great, but one of the managers is on z/OS
_________________
Marcin Grabinski <>< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
