| Author |
Message
|
| klr |
 Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:03 am Post subject: Clustering with queue manager of Corporate message hub |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 31
|
Hi,
I am new to Clustering.Here are my questions.
1)What if the queue manager from Corporate Message Hub is in a cluster and it has to decide target queue manager in the cluster depending on the content in the messages it has to put. I have seen in a document like replyto queue should be used and in one document transmission queue should be used. I am literally baffled..
2)And all other queue managers in the cluster must send to the one in CMH only. Is it enough if I make the channel in CMH as full repository channel and do the remaining?
Please help me out.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fatherjack |
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:13 am Post subject: Re: Clustering with queue manager of Corporate message hub |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 522
Location: Craggy Island
|
| klr wrote: |
| 1)What if the queue manager from Corporate Message Hub is in a cluster and it has to decide target queue manager in the cluster depending on the content in the messages it has to put. |
If you have to send to a specific queue on a specific queue manager then you don't need clustering. You may use the cluster sender channel to get from your CMh to the target but thats it.
| klr wrote: |
| 2)And all other queue managers in the cluster must send to the one in CMH only. Is it enough if I make the channel in CMH as full repository channel and do the remaining? |
Likewise, clustering is irrelevant, other than you may use the cluster channels.
BTW, channels are not full repositories, queue managers are.
_________________
Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| klr |
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 31
|
Thank you..
Actually my requirement is that there r nearly 15 queue managers to which cmh queue manager has to talk. i.e., it has to receive the messages from these 15 individually and decide the target queue manager depending on the content. And the number 15 may increase in future. So it is tedious to set up all interfaces,queues,channels etc. So I thought Clustering would give me a solution. Can u please tell me if there is any other way to achieve the requirement? Or setting up as usual is the only solution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| klr |
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 31
|
| So I think its better if i use normal sender and receiver channels instead of cluster channels am I right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You need to separate your understanding of how to configure an MQ network from your understanding of how MQ name resolution works.
MQ clustering simplifies constructing an MQ network.
It can actually complicate MQ name resolution.
It is certainly a reasonable idea from an administrative point of view to construct an MQ cluster as a means of fully interconnecting all of your queue managers - whether or not you plan to use the load-balancing features available. MQ name resolution works just as well when there is only one instance of an object shared in the cluster as when there are more than one instance.
But you need to balance that simplicity against the remaining requirements you have on the MQ network - particularly those that involve security.
If you simply connect all your queue managers in a cluster, a reasonably well informed person or a poorly-informed-but-overly-clever programmer can now administer any queue manager in the cluster that is running a command server as if they were the mqm user. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vmcgloin |
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 04 Apr 2002
Posts: 560
Location: Scotland
|
In addition to all the good advice you have got on clustering, you also have to be clearer on what you mean by your content based routing.
If you have well-defined queue naming standards then you can use that in conjunction with your clustering to route based on queue name resolution, but if you want to actually route based on any other data or meta-data present in those messages you are going to need some kind of message broker. The same applies if you plan on using the centralised hub for any other kind of boundary functions - like auditing etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| klr |
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 31
|
Yes I am going to filter the messages based on meta data in Corporate Message Hub (with broker) and then accordingly send the message to the appropriate queue.
So can I use clustering at any point in my requirement or direct approach is only advisable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
The choice of using a cluster queue is made by the application opening a queue that is defined with the CLUSTER(clusternamegoeshere) attribute value set.
If CLUSTER() is set, then clustering software will distribute the resulting message across cluster channels.
If you define the queue without the CLUSTER() attribute set, then the message will be sent across traditional (non-cluster) channels.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
You can use clustering and if your infrastructure increases in the future then joining another queue manager(s) to a cluster eases set-up of those queue managers, however, heed mqjeff's warning in regard to security and ensure your cluster channels are locked down etc.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| If you define the queue without the CLUSTER() attribute set, then the message will be sent across traditional (non-cluster) channels. |
No, not necessarily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Jeff. Well, yes, I see your point.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| klr |
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 31
|
| Thanks everyone. So Can I confirm that clustering is not going to help me in my requirement? Because I want the messages to be read in CMH and then as per their header they ve to be routed to the appropriate queue on appropriate queue manager. In the same way from all those queue managers I should receive messages on my queue manager in CMH. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You want pub/sub, not clustering.
You can use clustering in support of pub/sub.
Or you want an application that reads messages and writes them to the correct queue manager. (a "message broker". WebSphere Message Broker is particularly well suited for this job, somehow) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
