| IF not using MQSeries ETC, would you, if avaiable without cost? |
| Yes, I would use it, |
|
83% |
[ 5 ] |
| No, I would not use it |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| I have no need for a Transactional Client |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 6 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| bobbee |
 Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:58 am Post subject: Extended Transaction Client Lic. |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 20 Sep 2001
Posts: 545
Location: Tampa
|
| MQSeries Extended Transaction Client (ETC) is an additional purchase cost per server. If you would like to use ETC but do not because of cost I would like to know. I have set up a Poll below. I would also appreciate your company name which you can supply off line and this would be kept confidential. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
I don't know about the legalities but to me it would make total sense to bundle the ETC for free with the RAR adapter.
In a J2EE world it makes little sense to have to make the distinction between MQServer on the platform or just client connection with the MQServer hosted on a different box. Especially if the server is not WAS... or if you want to take advantage of features your level of MQ provides but your level of WAS isn't yet at that level of MQ libraries.
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
I'd be curious as to how wide-spread the use of the Extended Transactional Client is?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| I'd be curious as to how wide-spread the use of the Extended Transactional Client is? |
You'd have to add into that count every MQ Server that has for only function to service an app and forward the messages to a different server for processing. (You could have used an ETC client but chose to use a server as the licensing costs are about the same).
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| I'd be curious as to how wide-spread the use of the Extended Transactional Client is? |
We use it.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| T.Rob |
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:08 am Post subject: Support? |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 16 Oct 2001
Posts: 56
Location: Charlotte, NC
|
I guess the interesting question here is whether your hypothetical free version of ETC comes with IBM support. Currently the free WMQ client interacts only with WebSphere MQ. The ETC interacts with a handful of XA transaction coordinators that are not IBM products. Currently IBM will support ETC in combination with both IBM and non-IBM transaction coordinators.
If people are voting "yes I'd use it if it were free" is that still true if it's unsupported or supported only with IBM transaction coordinators?
_________________
-- T.Rob
Voice/SMS 704-443-TROB (8762)
https://t-rob.net
https://linkedin.com/in/tdotrob
@tdotrob on Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Hugh_Everett |
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 08 Jul 2001
Posts: 19
Location: Manchester, UK
|
I know of a company in the UK who implemented their solution using ETC, having installed the ETC function "out of the box" at the same time as everything else. Which one can do, without realising that it's an extra licence cost. And they used ETC explicitly because of its transactional control ... (obviously ?).
They then rolled out that solution to a number of clients .... and only then did someone point out that they should be paying extra for using the ETC on those boxes without Queue Managers.
So this company wishes that the ETC was part of the standard WMQ Licence Terms and Conditions, because their auditing will pick up the licensing anomaly soon.
_________________
Hugh Everett
Manchester, UK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Licensing compliance applies to the WMQ base product, ETC, WAS, MB, the platform o/s, and all other licensed products.
Which part of the ETC license did you/your organization not understand? Did you/your organization violate the WMQ base product license, as well?
_________________
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.
Last edited by bruce2359 on Mon Jul 12, 2010 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bobbee |
| Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 20 Sep 2001
Posts: 545
Location: Tampa
|
| Fully supported. Otherwise there are more customers that would not use it because of that fact then it being free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| camauz |
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:10 am Post subject: ETC: must have or must not have?! |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 Aug 2007
Posts: 52
Location: Mojan, Italy
|
Selling a client at the same price of a server - this applies in Italy too - is a "strategic" decision: sometimes you have no choice from an architectural point of view, especially when dealing with "legacy applications" no one want to change.
My 2 cents: the client license should be cheaper than server license... does it sound so strange?
Could you immagine a DB2 or Oracle client able to perform one phase commit only?
IMHO there are some political & marketing issues inside WebSphere MQ product placement in the transactional arena: if it was more flexible in configuration and topology, it would erode market share to the other big blue product. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| sometimes you have no choice |
Not true. You always have choices.
While I'm sympathetic about the cost of doing business, it is the cost of doing business. Everything has value. Some things have more value, some less. Supply and demand drive many marketing decisions. Single-phase commit is fairly simple, as compared to two-phase commit.
We are inevitably back at the triad of Cost, Quality, Time; where you get only two of them. If Cost is the driving factor, then you/your organization will sacrifice Time (write your own ETC) or Quality (single-phase commit only).
I try to get my clients thinking about the cost (of ETC, in this instance) per transaction, or cost per customer, or cost per day/week/month, or cost per dollar transacted. These are basic TCO cost-benefit metrics.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| tsorgie |
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 3
|
We definitely need the ETC, and very much dislike IBMs pricing of it. The difference in code on the client between non-XA and XA is tiny.
I agree with the comparison to DB2 or Oracle. Client licenses for a server are generally free/low-priced; and you simply scale (and pay for) the server as necessary for the number of clients you need.
Their pricing approach is out-of-sync with our scaling methodology. We have many client machines that lightly interact with MQ, but need an XA connection when they do. As a result we are charged as we add servers which are scaled for a non-mq purpose. We're forced to plan to move off MQ, as its client based pricing makes it represent 95% of the cost of adding infrastructure to our system.
I really like MQ and this pricing approach is something i find highly disappointing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
WAS has a XA capable MQ client built in.
I agree the ETC is too expensive. Perhaps the standard MQ client is too inexpensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| tsorgie wrote: |
| The difference in code on the client between non-XA and XA is tiny. |
Really? Do you have access to the source so as to determine how much extra effort IBM's had to put in to ensure the client code can properly particiate in an XA transaction?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tsorgie |
| Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 3
|
Unforuantely, we don't use WAS, we use another Java Server.
Just to triple check; maybe there is a chance that i'm misunderstanding the condition under which the ETC is required.
As i understand it, the ETC is required any time you use an XA connection to MQ. Is that right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
