| Author |
Message
|
| sami.stormrage |
 Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 186
Location: Bangalore/Singapore
|
| Quote: |
What about queue-sharing groups?
Only supported for WMQ on z/OS?
This i think would be a real benefit of MQcluster |
Yup..
Yeah, may be that benefit is making people more inclined on setting up their cfgmgrs and brokers on z/OS
 
_________________
*forgetting everything  * |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Blomman |
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 230
|
Ok if i choose to not use an MQcluster and just instead use my hw loadbalancer.
I think i have an issue reguarding MQ connections(thoose few who i cant consolidate). Becuse an channel need an QM name and im gonna have 2(remember 2 packages with QM/WMB in each package).
And the QM name has to be unique, so if i fail over and my standby QM has a diffrent name my MQ connections is broken...
Ok an MQcluster resolves this issue, but if i dont want one is there some smart workarounds for this issue?
//Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Blomman wrote: |
| Ok if i choose to not use an MQcluster and just instead use my hw loadbalancer. |
You can't do that.
Unless you are using MQ Client connections. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Blomman |
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 230
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| Blomman wrote: |
| Ok if i choose to not use an MQcluster and just instead use my hw loadbalancer. |
You can't do that.
Unless you are using MQ Client connections. |
Why?
//Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| Blomman wrote: |
Ok an MQcluster resolves this issue, but if i dont want one is there some smart workarounds for this issue?
|
Yeah, its called High Availability via hardware clustering. We are going in circles. No matter how many times you ask the question the answer will be the same. You are trying to reinvent the wheel. Like I said before, people a lot smarter than you are I have already tackled this problem.
On UNIX, its the MC91 and IC91 Support Packs. On Windows its the chapter on MSCS in the System Admin Guide.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Blomman |
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 230
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Blomman wrote: |
Ok an MQcluster resolves this issue, but if i dont want one is there some smart workarounds for this issue?
|
Yeah, its called High Availability via hardware clustering. We are going in circles. No matter how many times you ask the question the answer will be the same. You are trying to reinvent the wheel. Like I said before, people a lot smarter than you are I have already tackled this problem.
On UNIX, its the MC91 and IC91 Support Packs. On Windows its the chapter on MSCS in the System Admin Guide. |
Hehe i think we still not talking the same language here...
HA has nothing to to with loadbalancing as far as i know...Working with HP ServiceGuard for 5years now.
Forget about any cluster solution this was my question:
3 QMS, 1 in hongkong, 1 in BuenosAires and the last one at my home.
Im sending messages from my home to HongKong.....
Kabooom! HongKong explodes into atoms and is no more, now i want to send messages from my home to BuenosAires instead without changing any attributes of channels etc.....
"No there arent any workaround for this..."
"Ok thank you and goodnight... "
But ok we can drop this topic now we are not coming anywhere.
//Michael
Last edited by Blomman on Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
5 minutes in a room with a white board and this would be solved. Its hard to do it like this.
Use MQ Series clustering to load balance work coming from other QMs, to two or more seperate and distinctly named QMs.
Use MQ Client Channel Tables in MQ 7.0 to load balance incoming MQ Clients to two or more distinctly named QMs.
Use network load balancers to load balance work ***from MQ Clients only*** to two or more distinctly named QMs, if you are not at MQ 7.0 yet.
The second you start talking about the same named QM/Broker coming up on another server, STOP. Load balancing of any sort no longer is applicable, and you are talking strictly High Availability via hardware clustering.
You can load balance to a set of QM / Brokers that are already themselves Highly Available via hardware clustering if you want the best of both worlds. But it no way can a load balancer by itself give you the same named QM and Broker on 2 or more machines.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On
Last edited by PeterPotkay on Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Blomman |
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 230
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
5 minutes in a room with a white board and this would be solved. Its hard to do it like this.
Use MQ Series clustering to load balance work coming from other QMs, to two or more seperate and distinctly named QMs.
Use MQ Client Channel Tables in MQ 7.0 to load balance incoming MQ Clients to two or more distinctly named QMs.
Use network load balancers to load balance work ***from MQ Clients only*** to two or more distinctly named QMs.
The second you start talking about the same named QM/Broker coming up on another server, STOP. Load balancing of any sort no longer is applicable, and you are talking strictly High Availability via hardware clustering.
You can load balance to a set of QM / Brokers that are already themselves Highly Available via hardware clustering if you want the best of both worlds. But it no way can a load balancer by itself give you the same named QM and Broker on 2 or more machines. |
I think i need an whiteboard here....Is hard with just words as u said.
//Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
