| Author |
Message
|
| gstokes |
 Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:35 am Post subject: Using Multi-Instance Queue Manager with MQ 7.0.1 for HA |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 38
|
That solution was running MQ 7.0.1 on two separate machines MQ1 and MQ2 using remote shared storage. Both servers will be running Multi-Instanced Queue Manager. There will be a CSS between the Application servers and the 2 MQ servers. The question that networking has posed if MQ1 is active and MQ2 is the standby server using Multi-Instance and both listen on port 1414:
1.When MQ2 is in standby, hopefully it is not actively listening on 1414 while MQ1 is actively listening on 1414 as this will confuse the CSS is what networking is saying. Is this the case that MQ2 is not actively listening?
2.If MQ1 dies or has an MQ malfunction and MQ2 comes out of Standby and becomes the active MQ server does the listener on MQ1 using port 1414 automatically disable so only MQ2 is now listening on port 1414? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:13 am Post subject: Re: Using Multi-Instance Queue Manager with MQ 7.0.1 for HA |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| gstokes wrote: |
That solution was running MQ 7.0.1 on two separate machines MQ1 and MQ2 using remote shared storage. Both servers will be running Multi-Instanced Queue Manager. There will be a CSS between the Application servers and the 2 MQ servers. The question that networking has posed if MQ1 is active and MQ2 is the standby server using Multi-Instance and both listen on port 1414:
1.When MQ2 is in standby, hopefully it is not actively listening on 1414 while MQ1 is actively listening on 1414 as this will confuse the CSS is what networking is saying. Is this the case that MQ2 is not actively listening?
2.If MQ1 dies or has an MQ malfunction and MQ2 comes out of Standby and becomes the active MQ server does the listener on MQ1 using port 1414 automatically disable so only MQ2 is now listening on port 1414? |
Apparently your are confusing MQ 7.0.1 failover and HA failover.
With MQ Failover there is no IP failover or switchover...
Now if you want to provide IP switchover you need to consider all the cases, including the listener stays active on both machines...
Have fun 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gstokes |
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:23 am Post subject: Re: Using Multi-Instance Queue Manager with MQ 7.0.1 for HA |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 38
|
| No, We are using Multi-Instance Queue Manager with a network Content Service switch. In MQ 7.0.1 using the CSS it will know which multi -instance Qm is active on a designated port and use that QManager. multi -instance Qm allows for an active QM and a standby Qm for failover. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gstokes |
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:27 am Post subject: Re: Using Multi-Instance Queue Manager with MQ 7.0.1 for HA |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Jan 2007
Posts: 38
|
| Also I realize there is no IP failover. The CSS will handle the separate IP's. And Multi -instance Qm will handle the acitve MQ1 versus the standby MQ2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:03 pm Post subject: Re: Using Multi-Instance Queue Manager with MQ 7.0.1 for HA |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| gstokes wrote: |
| Also I realize there is no IP failover. The CSS will handle the separate IP's. And Multi -instance Qm will handle the acitve MQ1 versus the standby MQ2 |
Sure but how will the CSS handle the case where both listeners are up but only one qmgr is active?
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:16 pm Post subject: Re: Using Multi-Instance Queue Manager with MQ 7.0.1 for HA |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| gstokes wrote: |
| Also I realize there is no IP failover. The CSS will handle the separate IP's. And Multi -instance Qm will handle the acitve MQ1 versus the standby MQ2 |
Sure but how will the CSS handle the case where both listeners are up but only one qmgr is active? |
If the listener is being handled by the 'active' queue manager, how would 'both' listeners be up?
(please don't let the answer be inetd...)
_________________
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 |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:00 pm Post subject: Re: Using Multi-Instance Queue Manager with MQ 7.0.1 for HA |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| exerk wrote: |
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| gstokes wrote: |
| Also I realize there is no IP failover. The CSS will handle the separate IP's. And Multi -instance Qm will handle the acitve MQ1 versus the standby MQ2 |
Sure but how will the CSS handle the case where both listeners are up but only one qmgr is active? |
If the listener is being handled by the 'active' queue manager, how would 'both' listeners be up?
(please don't let the answer be inetd...) |
No set to start through mqsc and started as runmqlsr & ....
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I believe the documentation will explain that the only thing running on a passive member of a multi-instance queue manager is something that is periodically checking to see if it can acquire a file system lock on critical mq resources.
Only once that lock is acquired will the passive qmgr believe that it is able to start up in a reasonable manner and actually process new work.
But it also seems dead easy enough to confirm through testing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jeevan |
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2010 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 1432
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
I believe the documentation will explain that the only thing running on a passive member of a multi-instance queue manager is something that is periodically checking to see if it can acquire a file system lock on critical mq resources.
Only once that lock is acquired will the passive qmgr believe that it is able to start up in a reasonable manner and actually process new work.
But it also seems dead easy enough to confirm through testing? |
Or in clear language, the standby qmgr is not listening to a port until it is active. So it does not occupy a port .
I believe the system which checks periodically for file systems lock, will trigger all what an active qmgr need to have: start listener etc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
