| Author |
Message
|
| cd |
 Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 10:23 am Post subject: WMB 6.1 SOAPInput node listeners |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 20
|
Hello,
Our environment is AIX 5.3, WMB 6.1.0.2 and MQ 6.0.2.5. We have one broker on each of two servers.
We have a single message flow that uses the SOAPInput node. This message flow is deployed to one execution group on each broker. We have used the mqsichangeproperties command to explicitly set the port number for the execution group on each broker to the same value (as in, mqsichangeproperties AMS61BT3 -e ecc -o HTTPConnector -n explicitlySetPortNumber -v 14300). We have a load balancer that balances a URL to this same port on each of the two servers. I have no details on how the load balancer is set up or implemented.
The app team that owns this message flow wants to deploy it to additional execution groups on each broker. Can I use the mqsichangeproperties command to set the port number to the same value for the additional execution groups? Is this possible? Is this advisable? Is there anything I need to look out for in doing this?
Thanks.
Curt Dolny
Northwestern Mutual |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed May 20, 2009 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: WMB 6.1 SOAPInput node listeners |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| cd wrote: |
| Can I use the mqsichangeproperties command to set the port number to the same value for the additional execution groups? |
Only if you are also setting it to point to a different IP address.
No two processes of any kind can listen on the same unique combination of IP address and Port.
You may be able to configure your loadbalancer to balance across multiple port numbers in the same way it is now balancing against multiple ip addresses with a static port. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
We have load balanced across 2 EGs (each with a unique port) each on 2 Brokers. Most load balancers can do this easily.
You might want to run multiple instances of the flow in the one execution group on a Broker instead of across multiple execution groups. Unless your flow is already CPU bound in the one EG. Then it makes sense to spread across multiple EGs if your server has multiple CPU cores available to the Broker.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| cd |
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 20
|
The powers that be want to see test results from two tests. Test 1 would be having additional instances within the same execution group. Test 2 would be deploying to multiple execution groups.
The network guys are trying to set this up with an ACE load balancer. We have a single URL that is to be balanced between two brokers that are on different servers. In Test 1, the URL gets load balanced to the same port on different IP addresses. For Test 2, we were hoping that having multiple execution groups on the same broker use the same port would work so that the ACE setup would remain the same. The network guys are saying that they can't (or maybe won't) load balance a URL to multiple ports on the two IP addresses.
Additional brokers on additional servers is not an option for us.
Thanks for your help!
Curt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You can't do it.
You need either more addresses or more port #s.
TCP/IP at the network layer does not support multiple applications trying to read the same packet at the same time, nor multiple applications multiplexing packets to the same ip/port combination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mgk |
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 31 Jul 2003
Posts: 1642
|
Hi, you need to explain to the network guys that each execution group is an OS level process, with its own TCP/IP port, they then will understand why what they ask cannot be done on most OS's.
Kind Regards,
_________________
MGK
The postings I make on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent IBM's positions, strategies or opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| cd |
| Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 20
|
Thanks everyone for your help and comments. I think we have everyone here at work in agreement on what are the issues and reasons for not being able to do what was asked for.
We now have the network guys looking at assigning additional IP addresses to the servers. That should satisfy the requirement that my execution groups require a unique IPAddress:port combination.
Once they add new addresses, then I believe something like the following commands will allow us to easily load balance through ACE...
mqsichangeproperties AMS61BT3 -e ecc -o HTTPConnector -n explicitlySetPortNumber -v 14300
mqsichangeproperties AMS61BT3 -e ecc -o HTTPConnector -n address -v 1.1.1.1
Then repeat these commands for the remaining execution groups using a unique value for the 'address' attribute.
Thanks again.
Curt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
