Author |
Message
|
pheiro |
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:47 am Post subject: 2 channnels connecting to same QM simultaneously |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 22 Jul 2009 Posts: 5
|
Hi
I need to have 2 channels on a QM connecting to same destination QM at the same time.
Can any one tell me how can i do this?
Thanks! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
kevinf2349 |
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003 Posts: 1311 Location: USA
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Vitor |
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: 2 channnels connecting to same QM simultaneously |
|
|
 Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
pheiro wrote: |
Can any one tell me how can i do this? |
In the same way you connect them with a single channel, except you need to apply a lot more intervention to control which is used for what messages.
Also be sure you actually need 2 channels for technical reasons rather than because your client wants 2 channels "to increase throughput". I've heard this requirement a lot, and they always go quiet when I point out that, despite there being 2 channels, the messages are actually going over the only network link between the 2 queue managers.
I was once told (as part of this) that even though there was a single network cable, using 2 channels "would double the available bandwidth". I thought the network guy was going to choke..... _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fjb_saper |
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003 Posts: 20756 Location: LI,NY
|
Well let me give it straight to you....
It seems that the channel process can throttle IO for you....
I run 2 channels from a mainframe to a distributed qmgr.
At peak time both xmitq queues fill rapidly (due to a batch process)
But the throughput with both channels is effectively better than with a single channel...(no changes to bandwidth)... Go figure....  _________________ MQ & Broker admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Vitor |
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
fjb_saper wrote: |
But the throughput with both channels is effectively better than with a single channel...(no changes to bandwidth)... Go figure....  |
Well I'll be!
I feel an experiment coming on.... _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
WMBDEV1 |
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sentinel
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 888 Location: UK
|
Vitor wrote: |
fjb_saper wrote: |
But the throughput with both channels is effectively better than with a single channel...(no changes to bandwidth)... Go figure....  |
Well I'll be!
|
I guess it depends where your bottleneck is. If you really are maxxing out your network bandwidth then I suspect this approach will not make any difference.
Just my ramblings though and not based on any proof...... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fjb_saper |
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003 Posts: 20756 Location: LI,NY
|
WMBDEV1 wrote: |
I guess it depends where your bottleneck is. If you really are maxxing out your network bandwidth then I suspect this approach will not make any difference.
Just my ramblings though and not based on any proof...... |
It was just plain to us that the bottle neck was not the bandwidth...  _________________ MQ & Broker admin |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pheiro |
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 22 Jul 2009 Posts: 5
|
well guys thanks for the small informative discussion!
can any one tell me wots the problem when i try to open 2 channels on the same XMITQ?
Does opening the first channel apply some kind of lock on that transmission queue
I get a 4063 code back when i start the second QMGR parallely |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PeterPotkay |
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001 Posts: 7722
|
pheiro wrote: |
Does opening the first channel apply some kind of lock on that transmission queue. |
Yes. _________________ Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
SAFraser |
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003 Posts: 742 Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
Quote: |
can any one tell me wots the problem when i try to open 2 channels on the same XMITQ?
Does opening the first channel apply some kind of lock on that transmission queue
I get a 4063 code back when i start the second QMGR parallely |
I don't understand what you are trying to do.
You want two channels on two separate queue managers connecting to a single channel on a third queue manager? I am confused by "same XMITQ" and "second QMGR".
Or you want two separate channel pairs on a single queue manager which connect to a remote queue manager? Which, as Vitor points out, will requires decisions about what data goes where.
We do use separate channel pairs for segregating data sometimes, as a convenient way to stop and start particular subsets of data in emergencies. Also, I have used separate channel pairs to separate real-time traffic from batch traffic.
My question is: what are you trying to do, exactly? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Vitor |
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
pheiro wrote: |
Does opening the first channel apply some kind of lock on that transmission queue
I get a 4063 code back when i start the second QMGR parallely |
As my worthy associate says, it does and for good & sufficient reason! If you have 2 channels you wouldn't want them serving the same xmitq.
I think we will offer better advice with a bit more information of what you're trying to achieve rather than what you're trying to do. _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mqjeff |
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008 Posts: 17447
|
The one case where you can share the same XMITQ with multiple channels is with MQ Clustering.
And there's nothing that says that you can't define multiple concrete Cluster Receiver channels, from which dynamic CLUSSDR/CLUSRCVR pairs will be spawned.
So if you really need multiple channels coming into the same qmgr, and you really don't want to have multiple qmgr aliases for the qmgr in order to address that qmgr with, this is the way to go.
Unless you have performance metrics that indicate that you really really do need multiple channels coming into the same qmgr, then you're almost certainly trying too hard to do something interesting at the expense of doing it right. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
vol |
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 69
|
Multiple channels can serve the same xmitq as long as only one channel is running at a time. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bruce2359 |
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 9469 Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Quote: |
Does opening the first channel apply some kind of lock on that transmission queue |
If memory serves, the MCA opens the xmit queue _INPUT_EXCLUSIVE. _________________ I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pheiro |
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 22 Jul 2009 Posts: 5
|
[quote="SAFraser"]
Quote: |
you want two separate channel pairs on a single queue manager which connect to a remote queue manager? Which, as Vitor points out, will requires decisions about what data goes where.
|
I need to open 2 channels on a single QMGR from one XMITQ pointing to a remote queue.
But as one of you rightly pointed i am able to turn on only one channel connected to the XMITQ.
Can any one suggest if there is a possible way out to spawn to 2 channels from a single XMITQ connecting to a remote Q?
I am using distributed queue and don't have much of an option rite now with Clustering
Thanks!! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|