| Author |
Message
|
| exerk |
 Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Who cares if QM1 can "see" the cluster queues on QM2?... |
Monk's management obviously do! 
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Agreed. I'm pondering why someone would implement an application (that MQOPENs a queue) on a qmgr where the queue isn't? But I'm sure that will come up in a future post... |
That's how most MQ clusters are probably working, since I would bet most MQ clusters are not set up with local Q Aliases for the app to use.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Agreed. I'm pondering why someone would implement an application (that MQOPENs a queue) on a qmgr where the queue isn't? But I'm sure that will come up in a future post... |
That's how most MQ clusters are probably working, since I would bet most MQ clusters are not set up with local Q Aliases for the app to use. |
I have seen a variation where the QA (clustered) is 'local' to the target QL (non-clustered) - I think they thought they had security 
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Monk wrote: |
| I will now have to convince my architect of some viable solution. |
Your architect needs to think carefully about why a WMQ cluster is in use. I'm guessing the qmgrs are in use by different 3rd parties who are not "allowed" to see other 3rd parties. So you can:
- devise a cluster with aliases etc as indicated, giving you a cluster that's as much work as a point-to-point network
- use a point-to-point network if there's no workload balancing
- Use SSL
- Buy the Capitalware solution
- Roll your own exit
- accept that all your customers are professionals who will play nice.
This list is not exhaustive, other solutions are undoubtably possibly, combinations of the above solutions may be useful.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| Monk wrote: |
| I will now have to convince my architect of some viable solution. |
Your architect needs to think carefully about why a WMQ cluster is in use. I'm guessing the qmgrs are in use by different 3rd parties who are not "allowed" to see other 3rd parties. |
This is an exact and specific case for using overlapping clusters. Each 3rd party is it's own cluster, presumably with it's own gateway qmgr.
All objects that are visible in a given cluster are q aliases that point to non-clustered queues. There may be many QAs that point to the same real QA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Monk |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 282
|
I more reply..just to make it even - 50.
_________________
Thimk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bbburson |
| Posted: Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 06 Jan 2004
Posts: 378
Location: Nowhere near a queue manager
|
| Monk wrote: |
I more reply..just to make it even - 50.
|
...AND to make people waste time clicking the "updated" topic, only to find no new information.  (which, of course, I have now compounded; apologies to all) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
