| Author |
Message
|
| xav_dude |
 Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:41 pm Post subject: MQ Explorer doesn't show System queues |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 1
|
| I'd like to browse the system queues more specifically the dead letter queue and look at the messages but MQ Explorer will only show "user" queues not system queues. I'm not aware of any security settings. I use MQ V6 and MQ Explorer 7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Push the button top right of the Explorer marked "Show/Hide System Queues"
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
And use another defined DLQ rather than the SYSTEM one.
_________________
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: Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
I'll disagree with that one. Nothing relies on the definition of SYSTEM.DEAD.LETTER.QUEUE. What does it matter if you use it, modify it, delete it, recreate it, etc.
Its not like SYSTEM.DEFAULT.LOCAL.QUEUE.
SYSTEM.DEAD.LETTER.QUEUE is just a plain ol' local queue that happens to start with the letters "SYSTEM."
Since no apps should be reading from it or writing to it, I have no problem with my DLQ having "SYSTEM" in the name. It describes it quite nicely. Its my system's DLQ.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
Because if someone restarts the queue manager with the -c option any changes made do a disappearing act...
_________________
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: Sat May 01, 2010 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
Good point.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Anyone who issues strmqm -c without a documented reason deserves a trout for failing to consider the full implications.
It's worth some experiments to see what happens when strmqm -c is run if the S.D.L.Q is fuller than the default maxdepth.
The more subtle consequences - changing defpsist, for example - are again worth considering, but should be well and truly covered by proper change management in production. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| Anyone who issues strmqm -c without a documented reason deserves a trout for failing to consider the full implications... |
Unfortunately I currently work with someone who feels documentation is an unnecessary evil and is prone to doing such things, and is further up the management food chain 
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| exerk wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| Anyone who issues strmqm -c without a documented reason deserves a trout for failing to consider the full implications... |
Unfortunately I currently work with someone who feels documentation is an unnecessary evil and is prone to doing such things, and is further up the management food chain |
Sounds like you need to bring in some auditors. You know, just to check for regulatory compliance. Make sure the company isn't breaking any laws, that kind of thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
