| Author |
Message
|
| yaakovd |
 Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:27 am Post subject: Migration from MQSI 2.0.2 to 6.1 |
 |
|
Partisan
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Posts: 319
Location: Israel
|
Hi
who can suggest way to migrate flows and MRM-s from MQSI 2.0.2 to 6.1?
Current mqsimigratemsgflows and mqsimigratemsgsets supports migration from 2.1 only.
Thanks.
_________________
Best regards.
Yaakov
SWG, IBM Commerce, Israel |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fschofer |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 02 Jul 2001
Posts: 524
Location: Mainz, Germany
|
Hi,
i would try migrating this way
2.0.2 => 2.1 => 6.0 => 6.1
You will probably need a separate installation for 2.0.2
and another pc with 2.1, 6.0 and 6.1
Greetings
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I wouldn't migrate at all.
Recode the flows in 6.1 directly, using the 2.0.2 Control Center as a view-only resource if necesssary, but ideally starting from scratch at the requirements process.
I guarantee the actual business requirements that the flows are meeting has changed since they were first written. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Luke |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 10 Nov 2008
Posts: 128
Location: UK
|
Was just about to post something similar to mqjeff. You'd have to do lots of testing after migration anyway as you'll find some things don't work in the same way between versions (found this with 2.1 to 5.0 migration anyway). Recoding will also give you the opportunity to use the newer features of the product of course.
Good luck |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fschofer |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 02 Jul 2001
Posts: 524
Location: Mainz, Germany
|
Hi,
migrating would at least save the work to recreate the flow nodes so it depends how many there are.
But this also depends on the compared effort for setting up a 2.1 Configuration Manager and 6.0 Toolkit with proper fixpacks.
And never underestimate the time needed to recreate the message sets which are needed however the flows are recoded as the data format of the messages probably must not change as usual external systems should not be modified when updating the broker.
Greetings
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Any requirements that were in place when the original solution was developed, including the message formats and the message sets, have likely undergone revision at some level and should be re-examined.
The odds are very good that even a migration will end up resulting in a significant amount of recoding because of "Oh, I forgot about that!". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Migrating that number of levels forward it would be better to just rewrite the flows using the existing as a template. The 2 levels might as well be different products given the differences between them, so by rewriting them you'd be able to develop better understanding for testing.
Aside from identifying possible improvments or enhancements that come from the new version.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fschofer |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 02 Jul 2001
Posts: 524
Location: Mainz, Germany
|
Seems nobody likes migrating from such an old version these days.
But for me it would only be the matter of starting up some old vmware images and with some luck the whole stuff would be migrated in some hours.
And with a larger number of flows and sets i would at least safe a lot of time copying from 2.0.2 Control Center to 6.1 Toolkit.
Redesigning, recoding and fixing no longer working stuff could still be done after this.
Greetings
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Yep, possibly the code could be migrated in a few hours
BUT BUT BUT
The testing is going to be a real PITA.
With 2.0.2 (and 2.1) for that matter I certainly had to do some funny things in ESQL just to get around problems and there were also 'features' that we found worked but were probably 'fixed' in later versions.
I certainly found several of these in V5 were fixed but didn't show up until testing and hours spent pouting over trace outputs (debugger was not very good then)
Remember that 2.0.2 didn't support ESQL references and stuff like that. Some of the horrible code that I have seen to navigate down a message tree that has been simplified with MOVE etc is beyond beleif.
If the flows don't use the MRM parser then there is a good chance that they will use the now depreciated XML parser. Will IBM drop it completel for V7? I don't know but there is always that possibility.
etc
etc
etc
As has been said, by all means use the existing flows (Nodes etc) as a template but if I had any say in the matter, I'd rewrite all of the ESQL unless the flow was very trivial.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fschofer |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 02 Jul 2001
Posts: 524
Location: Mainz, Germany
|
Never said that i would use the migrated code as it is.
Just wanted to point out that migrating the code could save time in some situations compared to just copying some stuff
from 2.0.2 Control Center (the ones who still remember it know how much fun this is) to 6.1 Toolkit.
Fixing typos in queue names, missing to set the database name in nodes and similar stuff could be avoided.
Greetings
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| yaakovd |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Posts: 319
Location: Israel
|
so... there is no "magic" solution to save time and risk of human mistakes on rewriting code 
thanks all 
_________________
Best regards.
Yaakov
SWG, IBM Commerce, Israel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqmatt |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Hursley, UK
|
The magic solution would be to phone up IBM services and pay them money to do it for you  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| yaakovd |
| Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Posts: 319
Location: Israel
|
Great idea 
I'll call myself
_________________
Best regards.
Yaakov
SWG, IBM Commerce, Israel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Re-writing flows is not really practical for large applications.
They should port fine at the source level. I would re-construct them in the new toolkit, cut and paste the ESQL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| yaakovd wrote: |
Great idea
I'll call myself |
Negociate hard!
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
