| Author |
Message
|
| jsware |
 Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 1:59 pm Post subject: MQ v6 connecting to MQv7 multi-instance queue managers |
 |
|
Chevalier
Joined: 17 May 2001
Posts: 455
|
Hi all,
Anybody got any solutions how an MQ qmgr running at v6 can connect to an MQ v7 qmgr running as multi-instance? In this scenario, the MQv7 qmgr's IP address may change when the "other" instance takes over, but MQv6 doesn't give an option of specifying multiple connection details in its channel defs.
I did some searching of the docs, Redbooks and here and they all talk about MQv7 being everywhere and client's handling multiple IP addresses etc, but not a mixed MQv6/MQv7 server environment. The "closest" I got to was coexistance of MQv6/v7 is not supported on the same server, but hopefully this doesn't extend to across different servers...
During migration from MQv6 to MQv7 I can envisage a mixed v6/v7 environment and need to work out a migration plan. I would like to replace HACMP of MQ with multi-instance to remove our dependancy on a technology our server guys are trying to eliminate (not going to go into their reasons).
This is one problem I am not sure how to solve. Am I constrained to upgrading non-HA'd MQv6's to v7 and then the HA'd MQv6's? I might be able to plan around this, but what about two separate HA'd qmgrs that intercommunicate with each other?
_________________
Regards
John
The pain of low quaility far outlasts the joy of low price. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mvic |
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 2:06 pm Post subject: Re: MQ v6 connecting to MQv7 multi-instance queue managers |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 2080
|
| jsware wrote: |
| Anybody got any solutions how an MQ qmgr running at v6 can connect to an MQ v7 qmgr running as multi-instance? |
I assume you mean, how to make the v6 qmgr work with the v7 qmgr that has just "switched over" to its second instance? My only idea is upgrade the v6 qmgr to v7 and use the comma-separated CONNAME.. is that out of the question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9471
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
If you are asking if a v6 qmgr can be part of v7 multi-instance, the manuals are very, very clear on this.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| ramires |
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Posts: 523
Location: Portugal - Lisboa
|
I've this question almost everyday. It's frequent to have two organizations with MQ networks, one with v6, the other start using v7. It's no option forcing migrations to v7 in some cases.
Is there a way to map a host name to two different ip's? I think a name server can do that, but not sure.
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mvic |
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 2080
|
| ramires wrote: |
| Is there a way to map a host name to two different ip's? I think a name server can do that, but not sure. |
Hmm.. Big change to name->address mapping vs. big change to MQ version number. Neither is a "risk free" option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
If all the queue managers are within your own controlled environment, do it in two stages:
1. Upgrade everything to V7.0.
2. Convert your HA queue managers to MI, and change the CONNAME's in all connecting infrastructure.
Bear in mind that some HA queue managers may not be ready to convert for some time, e.g. Gateway queue managers that face external parties.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Tue May 04, 2010 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
This IP address change problem is a major drawback to using MI.
Even with WMQ v7 it will hard (impossible for us without a large fund to pay for it) to change all client applications to use a CCDT. Some vendor supplied applications are beyond our control as well.
I have suggested to IBM that they provide an "exit" point when the MI switchover occurs, this could be used to drive a DNS update so that a IP name was repointed to the new IP address.
For the WMB broker MI, even if the MQ clients and other QMs are using two IP addresses, there is the issue of any inbound http or ftp requests to worry about. MI is a great idea but flawed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Nothing says you can't put a regular IP load balancer of some kind in front of two MI qmgrs.
If MI is insufficient for your HA requirements, nothing says you can't use "traditional" HA tools, which unlike MQ *do* have control over the OS and *can* do things like modify the network stack of the system and change the IP addresses being used.
If you're doing much of anything with Broker and HTTP, you probably have already implemented the ProxyServlet or your own regular webserver proxy system. ESPECIALLY if you're dealing with the SOAP nodes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jsware |
| Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 17 May 2001
Posts: 455
|
| exerk wrote: |
If all the queue managers are within your own controlled environment, do it in two stages:
1. Upgrade everything to V7.0.
2. Convert your HA queue managers to MI, and change the CONNAME's in all connecting infrastructure.
Bear in mind that some HA queue managers may not be ready to convert for some time, e.g. Gateway queue managers that face external parties. |
Most of the qmgrs involved are under our control and will eventually be MQv7, but not all overnight (too many of them). This is as far as I had got and was hoping that IBM had thought about this a bit more and I was missing something.
Careful upgrade order planning is in order. I'll discuss with our network & server guys to see if they have any ideas too.
Regards
John. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mvic |
| Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 2080
|
| jsware wrote: |
| was hoping that IBM had thought about this a bit more and I was missing something. |
Not totally sure what you mean but maybe you mean, you would like to have the facility in v6 to use the comma-separated CONNAMEs. What did IBM say when you raised a requirement for this?
You can continue to use your V6 qmgrs, just only not against a v701 MQ qmgr that is configured to use MI and has switched-over to the other node.
So I expect IBM's thinking is that you leave MI turned off until all qmgrs connecting are v701 as well, and have their CONNAMEs updated to use the new style. Then you can turn it on (if you like, there is nothing forcing you to do so). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jsware |
| Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 17 May 2001
Posts: 455
|
| mvic wrote: |
Not totally sure what you mean... What did IBM say when you raised a requirement for this?
You can continue to use your V6 qmgrs, just only not against a v701 MQ qmgr that is configured to use MI and has switched-over to the other node.
So I expect IBM's thinking is that you leave MI turned off until all qmgrs connecting are v701 as well, and have their CONNAMEs updated to use the new style. Then you can turn it on (if you like, there is nothing forcing you to do so). |
IBM normally think these things through and have a solution but it can be buried somewhere in the reams of documentation and I haven't found it. I am talking to IBM about migrating from v6 with HACMP & IC91 to v7 without HACMP/IC91 (if poss) and using MI instead.
Regards
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ralu |
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
Posts: 26
Location: Switzerland
|
| What about to use support pack mr01 ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 4:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| ralu wrote: |
| What about to use support pack mr01 ? |
Good spot! 
I'm going to try this one myself 
_________________
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 |
|
|
| jsware |
| Posted: Thu May 20, 2010 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chevalier
Joined: 17 May 2001
Posts: 455
|
| ralu wrote: |
| What about to use support pack mr01 ? |
This is what I was looking for  and because its got the source code even better.
_________________
Regards
John
The pain of low quaility far outlasts the joy of low price. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
