| Author |
Message
|
| Vitor |
 Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 5:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Yes, in a cluster, in a single qmgr, you can have multiple clusrcvr channels. |
Or use different IP addresses for different network routes.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Yes, in a cluster, in a single qmgr, you can have multiple clusrcvr channels. |
Or use different IP addresses for different network routes. |
I thought best practice there said to use the dns name to allow for different IPs and ip resolutions across NAT? 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| Vitor wrote: |
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Yes, in a cluster, in a single qmgr, you can have multiple clusrcvr channels. |
Or use different IP addresses for different network routes. |
I thought best practice there said to use the dns name to allow for different IPs and ip resolutions across NAT? |
Quite, and it's a bad habit of mine to use the terms "ip address" and "dns name" interchangably 
I apologise for any confusion and stand by my assertion that you can use 2 different channels to service 2 different routes.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| ...it's a bad habit of mine to use the terms "ip address" and "dns name" interchangably |
'ipaddress' and 'dnsname' are much shorter and more concise than 'absoluteorsomethingdiscoverable', which is my habit when referring to that which goes in the CONNAME attribute.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| shashivarungupta |
| Posted: Sat May 28, 2011 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 1343
Location: Floating in space on a round rock.
|
MQ Clusters, consist of cluster qmgrs, one/more cluster receiver channel(s) on each qmgr (unless the qmgr is member of multiple clusters).
If Qmgrs are member of only one cluster.
So, how far its good to have multiple cluster receiver channels on them, in the perspective of architecture (good / bad) ? in the perspective of good / bad practice to follow ?
{I'm not trying to kick the free training session here for the others but trying to dig out the reasons/cases in which it can be considered as standard/good/bad practice to follow}
<This can be as new topic if that's not comfortable here>
_________________
*Life will beat you down, you need to decide to fight back or leave it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| shashivarungupta wrote: |
| MQ Clusters, consist of cluster qmgrs, one/more cluster receiver channel(s) on each qmgr |
No. 'MQ' clusters consist of queue managers, each with the relevant cluster objects, formed into a logical grouping of purpose. Or, as the manual has it:
| The Information Centre wrote: |
| A cluster is a group of queue managers set up in such a way that the queue managers can communicate directly with one another over a single network, without the need for complex transmission queue, channel, and queue definitions. |
Although as Vitor has rightly pointed out, multiple network routes are also valid so 'single network' above can also be interpreted as 'the same network'.
_________________
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: Sun May 29, 2011 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Let's put it that way:
If there is no absolute need for multiple cluster channels (same routing), I am not in favor of defining more than 1 cluster receiver per qmgr per cluster.
Although you might say that multiple cluster receivers for the same qmgr /cluster will allow for a bigger throughput, I find that in the end it just adds to the confusion and have been able so far to keep up fine with the volume and throughput that we are having.
Any other opinions are welcome
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
Let's put it that way:
If there is no absolute need for multiple cluster channels (same routing), I am not in favor of defining more than 1 cluster receiver per qmgr per cluster. |
There's really no reason for multiple channels on the same route, and you need some fairly aggressive SLAs to justify multiple routes & multiple channels (if for no other reason as someone has to spring for additional network hardware!)
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
I'm not advocating multiple CLUSRCVR channels for the same cluster as a norm, and my apologies if I gave that impression.
_________________
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: Sun May 29, 2011 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Vitor wrote: |
There's really no reason for multiple channels on the same route, and you need some fairly aggressive SLAs to justify multiple routes & multiple channels (if for no other reason as someone has to spring for additional network hardware!) |
We're getting into definition hell here...
How about overlapping clusters as a reasons for multiple clusrcvr channels (same route) on a single qmgr? "Overlapping" in this instance means all of the same qmgrs in CLUSTERA are also defined in CLUSTERB.
_________________
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: Sun May 29, 2011 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| How about overlapping clusters as a reasons for multiple clusrcvr channels (same route) on a single qmgr? "Overlapping" in this instance means all of the same qmgrs in CLUSTERA are also defined in CLUSTERB. |
In that sort of case I'd expect one CLUSRCVR per cluster, but I think what was being alluded to by Vitor was multiple CLUSRCVRs for the same cluster in a queue manager.
_________________
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: Sun May 29, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
How about overlapping clusters as a reasons for multiple clusrcvr channels (same route) on a single qmgr? "Overlapping" in this instance means all of the same qmgrs in CLUSTERA are also defined in CLUSTERB. |
But then I did specify qmgr/cluster for the same route. This means that if you have 2 clusters on the same route/qmgr, I would expect 2 channels... That should have taken care of the overlapping cluster scenario...
One of the reasons for overlapping clusters is quality of service (batch / online etc...). This does call for one channel per cluster/qmgr as otherwise you cannot guarantee the quality of service.
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| shashivarungupta |
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 1343
Location: Floating in space on a round rock.
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
Let's put it that way:
If there is no absolute need for multiple cluster channels (same routing), I am not in favor of defining more than 1 cluster receiver per qmgr per cluster.
Although you might say that multiple cluster receivers for the same qmgr /cluster will allow for a bigger throughput, I find that in the end it just adds to the confusion and have been able so far to keep up fine with the volume and throughput that we are having.
|
I cent percent agree with fjb_saper and this is what I meant to say in my first post about cluster receiver channel.
And I wish this would really help in order to design the mq cluster on papers / in mind and then on mq servers.
| vitor wrote: |
| There's really no reason for multiple channels on the same route, and you need some fairly aggressive SLAs to justify multiple routes & multiple channels |
Yup, Agree.
| exerk wrote: |
| shashivarungupta wrote: |
| MQ Clusters, consist of cluster qmgrs, one/more cluster receiver channel(s) on each qmgr |
No. 'MQ' clusters consist of queue managers, each with the relevant cluster objects, formed into a logical grouping of purpose. Or, as the manual has it: |
Here my intention was not to give the definition of mq cluster as per the manuals at all But in context of the discussion. 
_________________
*Life will beat you down, you need to decide to fight back or leave it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
