|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
Lower traffic |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
Author |
Message
|
swatkats |
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Novice
Joined: 22 May 2010 Posts: 22
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mqonnet |
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand Master
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 1114 Location: Boston, Ma, Usa.
|
Let me give you my point of view (after vanishing off of this forum for a few years. )
When MQ started off in a big way, there were many questions by BOTH, those who were already well versed with MQ and otherwise. Over the course of years MQ developed and it matured quite a bit. I'd say in the last 4 years, it has gone from being matured to saturation. If you see the history, number of releases that were made the amount of stuff that was added was HUGE. From V 2 to 5 to 6. I think V6 of MQ was the tipping point.
V7.0 is the most pathetic MQ release ever. It was LITERALLY released so that they continue the "release cycle". Other than MQ FTE and a few pub/sub elements, there is literally nothing in there.
By itself, nobody would buy it or upgrade to MQ 7.0. IBM came up with another trick. MB 7 mandates MQ 7. Obviously, there have been tons of improvements in MB 7. And folks are sorta rushing into it. So, we get to the oldest trick in the book. Combine the best selling product with the worst selling one and Bingo, you have a winner.
Technically i do NOT understand why can't MB 7 work with MQ 6. But again, it is very much possible that the design was made such that the two can be combined together.
On another note.
IBM is hitting nail on it's own leg by introducing new technologies and products almost like every day. I mean, 10 years back IBM had a limited product suite. Today i think it has more products than CA which at one point used to combine over 700 products in a package until they realized that you cannot sell products in packages that way.
On even further note.
Most of the forum posts have literally been from rookies and new comers on/offshore, who wanted to get a "quick answer" rather than actually putting some effort to understand what the product is all about. And this was the main reason (good or bad) i stopped actively spending time answering on this forum. I know peter eventually got fed up and his signature now asks members to USE the search button. But that doesn't work as long as you have folks ready to answer these silly questions that one can figure out him/herself by spending a few minutes with the product or with the manual.
Wish to go even further.
Early 2000's there used to be like over 100 folks managing JUST an MQ infrastructure with over 3000 queue managers. Today the same thing is handled by less than 10. This is not because of economy. It is because of the maturity level of the product and stability of the enterprise itself. Now almost ALL major customers have implemented MQ/ESB for over a decade at a minimum. They are all at a stage where stuff is well oiled and everything is monotonous. They are literally getting the best ROI right now for their investments early on.
So, there. I know this one's a long one. But i guess i owe this to the group for being off the site for over 4 years.
Cheers
DD _________________ IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Developer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Solution Designer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 System Administrator |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mvic |
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi
Joined: 09 Mar 2004 Posts: 2080
|
mqonnet wrote: |
V7.0 is the most pathetic MQ release ever. It was LITERALLY released so that they continue the "release cycle". Other than MQ FTE and a few pub/sub elements, there is literally nothing in there. |
Your opinion is your opinion. In my opinion, there's a lot that's new in V7. None of it might be of interest in your particular situation - that's fair enough. But it is not correct to say that there is nothing in there.
(By the way, most of this is OT, and deserves a thread of its own). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mqonnet |
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand Master
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 1114 Location: Boston, Ma, Usa.
|
mvic wrote: |
mqonnet wrote: |
V7.0 is the most pathetic MQ release ever. It was LITERALLY released so that they continue the "release cycle". Other than MQ FTE and a few pub/sub elements, there is literally nothing in there. |
Your opinion is your opinion. In my opinion, there's a lot that's new in V7. None of it might be of interest in your particular situation - that's fair enough. But it is not correct to say that there is nothing in there.
(By the way, most of this is OT, and deserves a thread of its own). |
Agreed. But having worked with almost ALL major MQ customers all over the world (in person), i really did NOT see any value proposition for either upgrading to 7 or buying 7 by itself. V 6 with the latest CSD does almost everything that all of these customers are looking for.
There are lots of overlaps with 7 and other IBM products and hence it gets even more difficult to reason out going to 7 other than the fact that MQ 7 is needed for MB 7. _________________ IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Developer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Solution Designer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 System Administrator |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mqjeff |
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008 Posts: 17447
|
MQv7.0.0.0 may not have "significant" changes for many typical uses of MQ in enterprises.
MQv7.0.1.0 certainly does. Multi-instance qmgrs is *big*, and so is client reconnect features.
But in GENERAL, MQ v7 has the same advantages that v6 had over v5.3. Performance, stability, guarantee of future support...
MQv7's pubsub engine is also significantly better than the v6 pub/sub engine. This makes the life of anyone running a large JMS install base much happier.
And I strongly suspect you have an incomplete grasp of how many "major MQ customers" there are ALL OVER the world, and that you've probably actually worked with less than 20% of them "in person".
More importantly, just because a company happens to have a very large license base for MQ, doesn't mean they are actually making significant use of the product. So if you look at the top 20% of MQ customer base in terms of licensing, you may be missing every single member of the top 20% of MQ usage and message volume. So what counts as a "major mq customer" really depends on how you measure "major".
But, that's all just my opinion based on my own personal experience in the field and in the industry both as an employee of IBM and as an employee of IBM customers. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mqonnet |
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand Master
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 1114 Location: Boston, Ma, Usa.
|
mqjeff wrote: |
MQv7.0.0.0 may not have "significant" changes for many typical uses of MQ in enterprises.
MQv7.0.1.0 certainly does. Multi-instance qmgrs is *big*, and so is client reconnect features.
But in GENERAL, MQ v7 has the same advantages that v6 had over v5.3. Performance, stability, guarantee of future support...
MQv7's pubsub engine is also significantly better than the v6 pub/sub engine. This makes the life of anyone running a large JMS install base much happier.
And I strongly suspect you have an incomplete grasp of how many "major MQ customers" there are ALL OVER the world, and that you've probably actually worked with less than 20% of them "in person".
More importantly, just because a company happens to have a very large license base for MQ, doesn't mean they are actually making significant use of the product. So if you look at the top 20% of MQ customer base in terms of licensing, you may be missing every single member of the top 20% of MQ usage and message volume. So what counts as a "major mq customer" really depends on how you measure "major".
But, that's all just my opinion based on my own personal experience in the field and in the industry both as an employee of IBM and as an employee of IBM customers. |
There are only certain verticals (businesses) that use pub/sub extensively, agreed. But that is certainly NOT 80% ( from your computations). I can assure you that.
Regd usage of ALL available MQ features, i agree that the number of such companies that use MOST of MQ features would be only a handful. Rest all don't go that deep. And that's why i stressed on the fact that selling the idea of an upgrade (for such companies) with 3000 queue managers and say 1000 systems is a NO GO from the beginning. As the advantages are literally NONE.
The other minor advantages that you stated are either muted or could very well have been part of another CSD. No NEED to have a separate version.
Without going further (because this could go on forever ), i'd say, check the diff between 5.3 and 6 AND 6/7 and you'd know what i am talking about.
PS: I am an ex-IBM'er myself and working with ANY company using their products, you are more or less with IBM. Everyone has an opinion, and that always doesn't have to be right/good. _________________ IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Developer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Solution Designer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 System Administrator |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PeterPotkay |
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001 Posts: 7722
|
I'll agree with mqonnet on just about everything he mentioned, but I think there are as many new things going from 6 to 7.0.1 as there were going from 5.3 to 6.0. _________________ Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mqjeff |
Posted: Fri May 28, 2010 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008 Posts: 17447
|
PeterPotkay wrote: |
I think there are as many new things going from 6 to 7.0.1 as there were going from 5.3 to 6.0. |
That's mostly my point. 6.0.2.7 compared with 7.0.0.0 is not necessarily a "big" step. 5.3 CSD14 to 6.0.0.0 is not necessarily a "big" step.
v5.3 in general to v6.0 is a big step, and so is v6.0 to v7.0. Certainly v6.0.0.0 to 7.0.1.2 is *big*. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
gbaddeley |
Posted: Sun May 30, 2010 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003 Posts: 2538 Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Quote: |
V7.0 is the most pathetic MQ release ever. It was LITERALLY released so that they continue the "release cycle". Other than MQ FTE and a few pub/sub elements, there is literally nothing in there. |
I think IBM would disagree with that opinion. A lot of work went into V7.0 and the new features deserved their own Redbook. I think you vastly underestimate the internal changes involved in implementing a native pub/sub engine, message properties, MQI support for these, improved JMS integration, multi-instance queue managers (v7.0.1).
Quote: |
By itself, nobody would buy it or upgrade to MQ 7.0. IBM came up with another trick. MB 7 mandates MQ 7. Obviously, there have been tons of improvements in MB 7. And folks are sorta rushing into it. So, we get to the oldest trick in the book. Combine the best selling product with the worst selling one and Bingo, you have a winner. |
MB and MQ always went hand-in-hand. Now MB has a really nice pub/sub engine it can use, MQ v7.
Quote: |
Technically i do NOT understand why can't MB 7 work with MQ 6. But again, it is very much possible that the design was made such that the two can be combined together. |
Yes, I can see MB v7 and MQ v7 were specifically designed to work together. Major product releases every few years are fact of life. Software businesses need to survive and move with the market place, otherwise they lose sales. _________________ Glenn |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
zpat |
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001 Posts: 5866 Location: UK
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mqonnet |
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand Master
Joined: 18 Feb 2002 Posts: 1114 Location: Boston, Ma, Usa.
|
[quote="gbaddeley"]
Quote: |
V7.0 is the most pathetic MQ release ever. It was LITERALLY released so that they continue the "release cycle". Other than MQ FTE and a few pub/sub elements, there is literally nothing in there.
I think IBM would disagree with that opinion. A lot of work went into V7.0 and the new features deserved their own Redbook. I think you vastly underestimate the internal changes involved in implementing a native pub/sub engine, message properties, MQI support for these, improved JMS integration, multi-instance queue managers (v7.0.1). |
As i stated earlier, everyone has "an opinion" and that does not necessarily be the same all the time.
http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg247583.pdf
At least when you compare 6 to 7, remove pub/sub from 7 and tell me what is in there as a major enhancement. I am talking about major releases here and the need to go through an upgrade cycle. Not everyone is a pub/sub shop. More than 70% of this redbook is pub/sub and this is a net new V 7 product of MQ. How do you explain that?
I am not against upgrades or newer versions of the products. But it should have some value for "everyone" and not just "a segment of the industry" that uses a specific feature. Releasing something for a tiny segment and forcing the rest to run with them isn't the most appropriate way of doing things IMHO. And that is precisely what i was trying to stress. Nothing more nothing less.
Cheers
D _________________ IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Developer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Solution Designer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 System Administrator |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
fatherjack |
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 Posts: 522 Location: Craggy Island
|
mqonnet wrote: |
[I am not against upgrades or newer versions of the products. But it should have some value for "everyone" and not just "a segment of the industry" that uses a specific feature. Releasing something for a tiny segment and forcing the rest to run with them isn't the most appropriate way of doing things IMHO. And that is precisely what i was trying to stress. Nothing more nothing less. |
Interesting discussion. But does it really matter that its a 6.n to 6.n+1 or 6.n to 7.0 upgrade. Or whats in the new version. What's good about most new MQ versions is that in general there's no changes to make to existing implementations and little regression testing to do to upgrade. It's only if you want to make use of new functionality you need to do anything. Contract this for example to CICS upgrades in the past when you had to make wholesale application changes in order to upgrade. _________________ Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bruce2359 |
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 9469 Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Quote: |
I am not against upgrades or newer versions of the products. But it should have some value for "everyone" and not just "a segment of the industry" that uses a specific feature. Releasing something for a tiny segment and forcing the rest to run with them isn't the most appropriate way of doing things IMHO. And that is precisely what i was trying to stress. |
I sense a conflict of thought here. On the one hand you are not against upgrades or newer versions. On the other hand, it appears that you expect each upgrade/version to offer something dramatic.
I hear you asking 'why should I change?', 'what's in it for me?' I expect that this is also the attitude of your organization. I further expect that your organization has no official policy for cyclical software (or hardware) replacement.
For my WMQ clients, I try to explain to that much of the change will be invisible to the casual user - a good thing.
My first MQ was v2r1. Each new version/release brought more reliability and capability. Reliability is a hard-sell unless you have lots of outages.
SSL at the channel definition reduced complexity - for those that chose to implement it. Pub/sub did the same. MI offers more. NPMCLASS, more.
None of these were show-stoppers or show-starters; rather, they were visible (to me), incremental improvements.
A few last questions for you: are you still running Windows NT server? Win ME desktop? 286 hardware? Newer versions/releases were more similar than different - they were incremental. There were early-deployers of each, and those that chose to wait and see. _________________ 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 |
|
 |
fatherjack |
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 Posts: 522 Location: Craggy Island
|
bruce2359 wrote: |
Quote: |
I am not against upgrades or newer versions of the products. But it should have some value for "everyone" and not just "a segment of the industry" that uses a specific feature. Releasing something for a tiny segment and forcing the rest to run with them isn't the most appropriate way of doing things IMHO. And that is precisely what i was trying to stress. |
I sense a conflict of thought here. On the one hand you are not against upgrades or newer versions. On the other hand, it appears that you expect each upgrade/version to offer something dramatic.
I hear you asking 'why should I change?', 'what's in it for me?' I expect that this is also the attitude of your organization. I further expect that your organization has no official policy for cyclical software (or hardware) replacement.
For my WMQ clients, I try to explain to that much of the change will be invisible to the casual user - a good thing.
My first MQ was v2r1. Each new version/release brought more reliability and capability. Reliability is a hard-sell unless you have lots of outages.
SSL at the channel definition reduced complexity - for those that chose to implement it. Pub/sub did the same. MI offers more. NPMCLASS, more.
None of these were show-stoppers or show-starters; rather, they were visible (to me), incremental improvements.
A few last questions for you: are you still running Windows NT server? Win ME desktop? 286 hardware? Newer versions/releases were more similar than different - they were incremental. There were early-deployers of each, and those that chose to wait and see. |
So much more eloquently put.
Bless you my son. _________________ Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bruce2359 |
Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008 Posts: 9469 Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Quote: |
Contract this for example to CICS upgrades in the past when you had to make wholesale application changes in order to upgrade. |
The last CICS change for me that required wholesale app changes was circa-1989 when IBM dropped macro-level support. Did I miss something else? _________________ 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 |
|
 |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|