| Author |
Message
|
| mroy69 |
 Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:46 am Post subject: Performance MQclient mainframe ?? |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 2
|
Hi
Question about performances
About connexion with client MQclientV7 to mainframe QM_V7.
I want know what the best think to do is?.
I have about 100 client MQ on Windows.
I have a connect/disconnect on mainframe on each transaction, maybe 5 or 10 by seconds and I needs more transaction.
I want know it’s better to add a QM on windows «between my client and mainframe» with channel send and received to connect with my mainframe for more performances.
P.S excuse my English I’m French !
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| Do not connect/disconnect on each transaction. This is always bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:55 am Post subject: Re: Performance MQclient mainframe ?? |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mroy69 wrote: |
| I have a connect/disconnect on mainframe on each transaction, maybe 5 or 10 by seconds and I needs more transaction. |
It's a bad design to have a transaction connect and disconnect each time irrespective of platform. Better for an application to stay connected while it processes transactions and disconnect only when finished for a time.
| mroy69 wrote: |
| I want know it’s better to add a QM on windows «between my client and mainframe» with channel send and received to connect with my mainframe for more performances. |
IMHO it's better to have a Windows queue manager here. You'll get faster connection times (though my comments above apply) and more resilience to network issues between Windows & mainframe. Connections between queue managers automatically recover from such things, client connections do not as well(though the v7 client has improved the resilience of the client).
Other opinions are equally valid, etc, etc.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| IMHO it's better to have a Windows queue manager here. |
I'll agree wholeheartedly about connecting/disconnecting for every transaction; but what would make a mainframe solution less attractive?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
I'll take a guess as to what Vitor is alluding to...
Back in the day a lot of people would not allow MQ Clients to connect to their mainframe QMs for 2 reasons.
A. You need the CAF, which not all shops owned.
B. You ran the risk of some dopey front end client app sucking up all the connections to the QM.
A is still a concern, but as of MQ 7, B is no longer a problem. For those of us working with MQ and mainframe for years and years, its still hard to consider MQ clients connecting directly to mainframe QMs, although technically its no longer a big deal if you are at MQ 7 and you own the CAF.
Security is different, but you can secure things as well or better for those incoming connections, so thats not a (valid) excuse.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| ... but as of MQ 7, B is no longer a problem. |
Or for those at MQ 6, if you own MQAUSX for z/OS. 
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: Performance MQclient mainframe ?? |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| mroy69 wrote: |
| I want know it’s better to add a QM on windows «between my client and mainframe» with channel send and received to connect with my mainframe for more performances. |
This will probably give less performance than client connect to the mainframe, as the messages will need to traverse the Windows QM and the channels to the mainframe.
There are MQ customers out there who routinely connect thousands of instances of Windows MQ Client apps to a mainframe queue manager. Performance and reliability are both very good.
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
I always encouraged direct client connections to z/OS and we had 5000 in production (when I had a mainframe!).
But we had well written client applications, which maintained and re-used their connection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mroy69 |
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:40 am Post subject: Thank a lot All |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 22 Feb 2010
Posts: 2
|
Would have somebody there any samples of using connection pooling with MQ application ««.Net»» or web link that could help me.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
| If you are reading messages, use the IBM supplied .Net trigger monitor which does all the MQ stuff for you and calls a .Net assembly for each message, runmqdnm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
