| Author |
Message
|
| mqjeff |
 Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| exerk wrote: |
| Vitor wrote: |
| ...back when this software was new the ETC was an expensive & separate piece of kit... |
I think it still is, but don't quote me though! |
It's still a separately licensed product, AFAIK, however it is included in the main distribution and thus not a separate piece of kit.
But again, I am not an IBM Sales representative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| biruk |
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: Upgrade OS from windows 2000 to windows 2003 |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 14
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
And BTW, if I were one of your auditors I would insist on Server 2008... (Isn't win server 2003  obsolete already??)
Have fun  |
Win2003 R2 is not obsolete, not yet.
The application that use MQ, is developed in Java.
It's not up to me to design decide what to do.
Anyway, they want to change the whole application in one or two years, so they don't want to spend any penny more on this one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2011 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Tell "them" that it's not about spending a "pretty" penny. It's about keeping an application up and running in a stable environment, keeping it on supported hard and software.
Can you guarantee that Server 2003 will still be supported 2 years from now?
Can "they" guarantee that the application will be redone in 2 years?
Remember the nice principles "they" go by:
| Quote: |
| If it ain't broken, don't fix it. |
We have a java JMS stand alone app running on one of our boxes that is over 4 years old, and no change in sight in the near future...
Have fun
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| biruk |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 14
|
We did the migration.
MQ 5.3 is working fine on the new windows2003 upgraded.
Now me must move forward, since we have other software to upgrade.
We want to make this upgrade so that the application will run faster.
We have some performance issue now.
How the upgrade from JDK 1.4.2 to JDK 6.23 could affect MQ?
Our application is developed in Java, and this could help us to increase the performance.
Thanks a lot for your support until now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| biruk wrote: |
We did the migration.
MQ 5.3 is working fine on the new windows2003 upgraded.
Now me must move forward, since we have other software to upgrade.
We want to make this upgrade so that the application will run faster.
We have some performance issue now.
How the upgrade from JDK 1.4.2 to JDK 6.23 could affect MQ?
Our application is developed in Java, and this could help us to increase the performance.
Thanks a lot for your support until now. |
Moving from MQ 5.3 to MQ V7.0.1 you should also be getting a performance boost. However my guess is the bang for the buck will be neither in the MQ upgrade nor in the java upgrade but rather in the application coding... Now if you use a JMS Selector that does not deal with any of the native version of the values for JMSCorrelationId, JMSMessageId or group fields you will NEED to go to V7 to get the different handling of the message properties to get your speed boost. Remember you will need both client and server at V7.
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
We want to make this upgrade so that the application will run faster.
We have some performance issue now. |
 with fjb_saper.
Why do you believe that WMQ v6 or v7 will resolve your app performance issues?
What else have you/your organization tried? New hardware (processors, cpus, RAM)?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| biruk |
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 14
|
The performance problems are not on MQ level, but on application level, and how this application process MQ messages.
The application does not process only MQ messages, but files and web services requests.
The new JDK will help this application and not MQ.
The important thing is that MQ was working fine after the migration.
We did try to make some security settings, and after that the MQ did not work properly.
We went back to the backup done before that and it was ok.
Do you know where this errors came from ?
The HTTP SSL service was started. What kind of rights does MQ needs ?
An unknown error occurred during an SSPI call to the Secure Channel (Schannel)
SSL provider during SSL handshaking. The error may be due to a Windows SSL
problem or to a general Windows problem or to invalid WebSphere MQ data being
used in the call. The WebSphere MQ error recording routine has been called. The
error has caused WebSphere MQ channel name '????' to be closed. If the name is
'????' then the name is unknown.
Regards,
biruk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
EXACTLY where did you see this?
EXACTLY what is the error message number? Something like AMQnnnn...
What changes were made to the other end of the channel?
EXACTLY what error do you see at the other end of the channel?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| biruk |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 14
|
The complete error message is:
AMQ9699: An unknown error occurred during an SSL security call during SSL
handshaking.
EXPLANATION:
An unknown error occurred during an SSPI call to the Secure Channel (Schannel)
SSL provider during SSL handshaking. The error may be due to a Windows SSL
problem or to a general Windows problem or to invalid WebSphere MQ data being
used in the call. The WebSphere MQ error recording routine has been called. The
error has caused WebSphere MQ channel name '????' to be closed. If the name is
'????' then the name is unknown.
ACTION:
Consult the Windows Schannel reference manual to determine the meaning of
status 0x80090308 (The token supplied to the function is invalid ) for SSPI
call AcceptSecurityContext. If the problem can be resolved using the manual,
correct the failure and if necessary re-start the channel. If the problem
cannot be resolved then use the standard facilities supplied with your system
to record the problem identifier and save the generated output files, and then
contact your IBM support center. Do not discard these files until the problem
has been resolved.
We apply a security template on that server, and after that the MQ service couldn't start.
We modify the settings done by that template, and add some rights for the user under which the MQ service is starting.
After that the MQ service start, but couldn't check more, because we didn't have messages to send or to receive.
I don't know what is the error on the other end, because that system is manage by other team, in other country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
Find the Windows Schannel reference manual and search it for 0x80090308 in relation to SSPI call AcceptSecurityContext. If there are FDCs look into them, and switch on trace briefly and try to start the channel - it doesn't matter that you don't have messages to send - and the trace should provide some additional information.
You may be hitting, "...The issuing certificate authority (CA) for the server's certificate may not be locally trusted by the client, the certificate may be revoked, or the certificate may have expired...", and THIS may be of some relevance. Additionally, THIS has information in regard to turning on logging for Schannel events, in the MORE INFORMATION section.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| biruk |
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 14
|
Thanks a lot for you information exerk.
I will take a look and came back after I will try something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
