| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| WMB 6.1 / HA solution, VIPs and Ports |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| hopsala |
 Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:46 am Post subject: WMB 6.1 / HA solution, VIPs and Ports |
 |
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
Hi all,
I'm planning on implementing a full High Availability solution for WMB. It should look something like this:
ServerA QMA BRKA VIPA
ServerB QMB BRKB VIPB
VIP is the virtual IP address which is managed by the HA solution. The Configmgr isn't relevent to what i'm about to ask.
The idea is that if ServerA crashes, all its processes go up on ServerB, so that now we have:
ServerA <deceased>
ServerB QMA BRKA VIPA + QMB BRKB VIPB
Now, in order for both brokers and both QMs to work on the same machine, I have to make sure they're not listening on the same port. What I want to do is to have each listening on the virtual IP, thus avoiding port clashes - BRKA will listen on VIPA and BRKB will listen on VIPB. That is, even though both BRKA and BRKB both listen on 7080 for http requests, there will be no clash since they are working against different IP addresses. The same idea applies to MQ.
My question - does what I just described make sense, and is it indeed possible for brokers and QMs to listen on VIPs? Does anyone have any experience with this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
It shoud work just fine.
The IC91 supportPac should tell you more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
I agree with Jeff. Additionally, you can tell a Broker to listen on an http port of your choice, you're not tied to 7080. I don't know that both QMs can listen on 1414 and that both Brokers can http listen on 7080 if they are both running on the same physical server. Anyone? Even if they could, why not pick different ports for calrity's sake.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
The port # can be the same if the IP address is different.
you need to take steps to ensure the Listener only uses a single IP address, though... but that's a matter of what properties you configure on the listener. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Even if they could, why not pick different ports for calrity's sake. |
Actually, I think it's a little Less clear for two servers to run on different ports. I mean, it's just one more thing to remember about your setup - you know? Seems to me it's much clearer to simulate a normal state of two brokers and two IPs, with the same port.
Also, I'm going to have a Http load balancer in front of these two brokers, redirecting requests from one ip to one of the VIPs of the brokers. I'm not sure such load balancers have the capability to switch ports as well as ip's... ?
| mqjeff wrote: |
| The IC91 supportPac should tell you more.. |
Already read most of it. Strangely, even though virtual IPs are mentioned, they are specified only in connection with MQ and not the broker - searching for "mqsichangebroker" or "HTTPListener", which is the command that established the broker's IP, yields no results.
It's a marvelous SP, otherwise; really good stuff. I guess they thought brokers serve mostly MQ driven flows, but the site in question is actually 99% web service traffic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| hopsala wrote: |
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Even if they could, why not pick different ports for calrity's sake. |
Actually, I think it's a little Less clear for two servers to run on different ports. I mean, it's just one more thing to remember about your setup - you know? Seems to me it's much clearer to simulate a normal state of two brokers and two IPs, with the same port.
|
I see your point. I think you are probably right.
Although we won't have to QMs/Brokers running on the same server, we do bind our MQ Listeners to the VIP when we create them. This helps avoid the following:
Them: The MQ has been down for 8 hours!
Me: No it hasn't.
Them: I am trying to connect to ServerA and it says 2059.
Me: The QM is running on ServerB, per last night's scheduled change that you approved. Why are you not using the VIP I gave you?
Them:Well, I used ServerA when we first released the app and it worked so I just kept it.
Me: Oh.
By binding the MQ Listener to the VIP, they fail even if they use the correct physical server name instead of the VIP. Being able to have two listeners use the same port is another benefit of binding to VIPs.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| hopsala wrote: |
| It's a marvelous SP, otherwise; really good stuff. I guess they thought brokers serve mostly MQ driven flows, but the site in question is actually 99% web service traffic. |
You may get more information in this area from sPac IE01 documentation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
Them: The MQ has been down for 8 hours!
Me: No it hasn't. |
This part really made me laugh. If only I had an MQ license for every time I've had that discussion... I'd be... rich? 
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| By binding the MQ Listener to the VIP, they fail even if they use the correct physical server name instead of the VIP. Being able to have two listeners use the same port is another benefit of binding to VIPs. |
That's good to know. I wonder if it's the OS network service or the MQ listener that rejects/doesn't transfer the call.
From what I know of VIPs (which is very little), it's simply a router table saying "VIPA can be reached through IPA", IPA being the physical IP of the machine. So messages desginated for IPA will reach the machine's network card; but since MQ is registered as listening under the VIP, the network service will reject it. Is that it?
I guess it's time to read about VIP a bit, and IE01 as jeff suggested.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sami.stormrage |
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 186
Location: Bangalore/Singapore
|
I think brokers are not limited to msgflow handling, they can do their bit when in a collective, but I suppose this is limited to this limited to pub/sub configuration and still rely on MQ for shared memory allocations.
_________________
*forgetting everything  * |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
