| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| Lower traffic |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| fatherjack |
 Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| 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? |
Nope. Thats pretty much what I was thinking. But that shows both our ages. 
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
Although I've not been in the industry long, and my exposure to WMQ started at V5.2, I've yet to find a site where I've worked that uses anywhere near the full potential of the product. By way of an analogy, MS Word is a very feature-rich product and heavily used, but the average user is unlikely to utilise 10% of its capabilities - they use just those parts they need. Also, it's unlikely that any enterprise that has WMQ (and has had for any considerable length of time) will move the vast number of legacy applications and reliant infrastructure to a cheaper alternative - effectively, while nothing is indispensable it can be made pretty indisposable.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| ...that uses anywhere near the full potential of the product. |
This is usually referred to as the 80-20 rule. 80 percent of the time, we use 20 percent of its capabilities.
_________________
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: Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| 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. |
Perhaps what you are saying is that if you do not care about or need enhanced pub/sub, support for new O/Ses like Windows 2008, Configuration Events on Windows / Unix, Multi Instance QMs, Client auto reconnect, increased performance, support for revocation checking of SSL certificates using OCSP, (basically all the stuff listed in the MQ 7.0 and MQ 7.0.1 Announcement letters*), then why should your perfectly functional and stable MQ 6 environment be supported one day and then not supported the next, forcing you to upgrade, introduce risk and potential instability into an otherwise happy environment? Yeah, I'm with you. But its the way software, ALL software works. Nothing is supported forever. It wouldn't be fair to the software vendors to have to support every version forever.
To IBM's credit, the upgrade process for MQ is fairly painless, they did support MQ 6 and MQ 7 concurrently for quite a while (well over a year) and the announcements for dropping support are announced well in advance (> a year.) They need to get MQ on Distributed to where WMB is - the ability to install multiple versions on the same server and easily flip back and forth. Regardless, its still a pain in the duppa to have to go thru an upgrade not for new features you need but simply to beat an "artificial" date where support ends for otherwise perfectly functional software.
And, you can always pay for extended support. But the people that decide they will pay are not the same people that have to deal with the upgrades and the pain of the fallout due to the bugs in the new software.
*
http://www-01.ibm.com/cgi-bin/common/ssi/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&htmlfid=897/ENUS208-068&appname=usn&language=enus
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname=iSource&supplier=877&letternum=ENUSZP09-0282&open&cm_mmc=5344-_-n-_-vrm_newsletter-_-10285_126064&cmibm_em=dm:0:10662635
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
| The biggest pain (currently) is that you can't run different versions of WMQ at the same time (other than z/OS) on the same OS instance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mvic |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 2080
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| they did support MQ 6 and MQ 7 concurrently for quite a while (well over a year) |
As your statement is in the past tense, perhaps you refer to MQ 5.3 -> 6.
MQ 6 is still in support, until end of 3Q2011. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqonnet |
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 1114
Location: Boston, Ma, Usa.
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| 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. |
Perhaps what you are saying is that if you do not care about or need enhanced pub/sub, support for new O/Ses like Windows 2008, Configuration Events on Windows / Unix, Multi Instance QMs, Client auto reconnect, increased performance, support for revocation checking of SSL certificates using OCSP, (basically all the stuff listed in the MQ 7.0 and MQ 7.0.1 Announcement letters*), then why should your perfectly functional and stable MQ 6 environment be supported one day and then not supported the next, forcing you to upgrade, introduce risk and potential instability into an otherwise happy environment? Yeah, I'm with you. But its the way software, ALL software works. Nothing is supported forever. It wouldn't be fair to the software vendors to have to support every version forever.
To IBM's credit, the upgrade process for MQ is fairly painless, they did support MQ 6 and MQ 7 concurrently for quite a while (well over a year) and the announcements for dropping support are announced well in advance (> a year.) They need to get MQ on Distributed to where WMB is - the ability to install multiple versions on the same server and easily flip back and forth. Regardless, its still a pain in the duppa to have to go thru an upgrade not for new features you need but simply to beat an "artificial" date where support ends for otherwise perfectly functional software.
And, you can always pay for extended support. But the people that decide they will pay are not the same people that have to deal with the upgrades and the pain of the fallout due to the bugs in the new software.
*
http://www-01.ibm.com/cgi-bin/common/ssi/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&htmlfid=897/ENUS208-068&appname=usn&language=enus
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an&appname=iSource&supplier=877&letternum=ENUSZP09-0282&open&cm_mmc=5344-_-n-_-vrm_newsletter-_-10285_126064&cmibm_em=dm:0:10662635 |
Peter, i am with you too on your explanation. But my point was that the number of NEW features in V7 vs V6 + latest CSD are so discrete in nature that if most of my customers can do away upgrading to V7, my question is that why couldn't IBM just package these small enhancements in another CSD itself rather than introducing another version.
I am neither against upgrades nor against new versions. Nor am i against new enhancements. In corporate world, as you all know, applying a patch/CSD is different from upgrading to a totally new version. The amount of effort/money/resources/testing needed and not to mention business disruption is way too much for an upgrade compared to just a CSD patch. Hence, my whole point was that if you do in fact have so many features, it makes sense to have a net new release. Else, they could have been part of just another CSD.
I do NOT see the changes/enhancements in V7 being compelling enough for an enterprise install/upgrade with V6 running just fine. As has been stated earlier, it is business specific and NOT global. And that's why i felt a CSD would have been a better choice. At least you are NOT forced to upgrade.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqonnet |
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 1114
Location: Boston, Ma, Usa.
|
| 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. |
Your question is answered in my latest response to peter.
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 |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| At least you are NOT forced to upgrade. |
Reading through the posts from folks still using 2.x, 5.x,and various 6.x.x's, clearly you are not forced to upgrade. Windoze doesn't force you to upgrade either.
Stay where you are, go forward, go back, these are choices. These are decisions. Decisions are neither good nor bad; but you/your organization must live with the consequences.
_________________
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
|
|
|
|
