| Author |
Message
|
| paustin_ours |
 Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:30 am Post subject: Broker MQ HACMP |
 |
|
Yatiri
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 667
Location: columbus,oh
|
We have a aix lpar that has broker and MQ. We are trying to make this more available. The plan is to make this a hacmp configuration with active - passive. [forgive my terminology about hacmp, i am not familiar with hacmp]. Reading through some documentation.
I see the hacmp address hardware failures and give us the ability to switch to the passive node. What if the issue is with MQ or broker? Like say a deployed flow has caused the broker/EG to shutdown or some application has caused MQ to shutdown or if some MQ/Broker internal problem. Does switching to the passive HACMP fix that problem?
Should i read more about HACMP before I ask these questions? Please help me understand. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:53 am Post subject: Re: Broker MQ HACMP |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| paustin_ours wrote: |
| Does switching to the passive HACMP fix that problem? |
No, because HACMP starts the passive node in the same configuration as the active. It would be a bit rubbish if you failed over and were suddenly running code days / weeks / months out of date because you'd failed to update both nodes. Aside from the administrative hassle of applying 2 updates.
If WMQ or WMB has crashed due to an external software issue (like an out of storage condition) switching to the passive node will fix that in the same way rebooting the active would fix it. In other words, not very well.
| paustin_ours wrote: |
| Should i read more about HACMP before I ask these questions? |
Yes, you should. You need to at least understand how HACMP works and what it's attempting to achieve before trying to fit WMQ & WMB into it.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
| Also cheaper and easier to use WMQ and WMB Multi-Instance, rather than HA/CMP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| zpat wrote: |
| Also cheaper and easier to use WMQ and WMB Multi-Instance, rather than HA/CMP. |
Assuming the OP's on v7 (which could easily be the case for WMB) and doesn't have other software in the stack to fail-over.
It's probably worth underlining at this point that in addition to the HACMP software guide it's worth reviewing the forum for discussions on HACMP in particular and fail-over in general. It's quite likely you've been told (not asked) to use HACMP as your site's failover method & active/passive as your site's standard HA configuration, but if it's not a done deal other methods (like multi instance) are availble. Note that while these are cheaper they prevent other challenges. Which have been discussed here.
Likewise other configurations are possible, the most common alternative is active/active which someone else will be along to evangelise shortly. This too has advantages and disadvantages; you'll find these have been discussed at even greater length in here. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
I think its a cheap shot Vitor, someone offers an opinion you dont agree with, you just delete it.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
HA/CMP is fairly complex. If MI does the job then it really is easier and no license cost.
However even with HA/CMP - look at how MI sets up the standby QMs as IBM claim the HA support pac is no longer needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| zpat wrote: |
| HA/CMP is fairly complex. If MI does the job then it really is easier and no license cost. |
No question it's cheaper and potentially simpler. If it does the job. I'm think specifically of virtual IP which MI doesn't provide, but removes the need for with multiple CONNAMES. Great if it's just WMQ & WMB on v7 throughout, but an old v6 client or a database will ruin your day.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rglack10 |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 6:59 am Post subject: Re: Broker MQ HACMP |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 06 Jul 2011
Posts: 34
|
| paustin_ours wrote: |
We have a aix lpar that has broker and MQ. We are trying to make this more available. The plan is to make this a hacmp configuration with active - passive. [forgive my terminology about hacmp, i am not familiar with hacmp]. Reading through some documentation.
I see the hacmp address hardware failures and give us the ability to switch to the passive node. What if the issue is with MQ or broker? Like say a deployed flow has caused the broker/EG to shutdown or some application has caused MQ to shutdown or if some MQ/Broker internal problem. Does switching to the passive HACMP fix that problem?
Should i read more about HACMP before I ask these questions? Please help me understand. Thanks. |
Whilst it is cheaper to use multi-instance HA Websphere Broker/MQ v7 components there are considerations such as
1) If you were planning to fail over the additional instance to a passive LPAR then you will still require both MB/MQ licenses on that passive LPAR which I think IBM have now cut to 20% the normal license cost while it is passive of course...
2) For multi-instance components you will need an NFS/contact admin server to hold the compnent data and logs and this will also need to be HA (you might think, maybe not)
You might want to aim to fail over the second instance to an area which already has an MB/MQ license then there really is no additional costs..
POWER HA (as it is now called) is native to AIX and provides low level process and hardware HA is my understanding and is indeed a more expensive option. You might look at using the multi instance solution for your websphere components and POWER HA to make your NFS/contact admin server HA etc.. There are many ways to skin a cat and providing a HA solution is one of them... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| I think its a cheap shot Vitor, someone offers an opinion you dont agree with, you just delete it. |
a) What?
b) I actually quoted your preferred view, having omitted it (and the alternatives to HACMP) in my first post
c) I actually expected you to climb into the pulpit on this, and indicated as much:
| Vitor wrote: |
| which someone else will be along to evangelise shortly |
So I don't see where the firing is coming from. I await with interest your attempt to indoctrinate an OP who's admited inexperience with the HA concept with the evils of active/passive and how they need to burn their management for heresy if they don't agree. Or storm out of their jobs in protest.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:04 am Post subject: Re: Broker MQ HACMP |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| rglack10 wrote: |
| 1) If you were planning to fail over the additional instance to a passive LPAR then you will still require both MB/MQ licenses on that passive LPAR which I think IBM have now cut to 20% the normal license cost while it is passive of course... |
A cost saving not availible to an active/active in case anyone else neglects to mention that.
| rglack10 wrote: |
| You might want to aim to fail over the second instance to an area which already has an MB/MQ license then there really is no additional costs.. |
A common dodge is for the "passive" node to be the UAT/Pre-Production/Stress test server, something that has similar capacility to production
| rglack10 wrote: |
| POWER HA (as it is now called) is native to AIX and provides low level process and hardware HA is my understanding and is indeed a more expensive option. You might look at using the multi instance solution for your websphere components and POWER HA to make your NFS/contact admin server HA etc. |
Now that is an interesting option and one I'd have expected to come up in earlier discussions on the advantages of the Power platform.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paustin_ours |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 667
Location: columbus,oh
|
| We couldnt use MI because it doesnt support SAN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| paustin_ours wrote: |
| We couldnt use MI because it doesnt support SAN. |
Really?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paustin_ours |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 667
Location: columbus,oh
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Ok. I knew there were some restrictions but too idle to look them up.
Probably rules out MI for you then. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rglack10 |
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 06 Jul 2011
Posts: 34
|
| Vitor wrote: |
Ok. I knew there were some restrictions but too idle to look them up.
Probably rules out MI for you then. |
Well this is partially true I think... It is correct SAN cannot be used as a single SAN volume cannot be mounted to two separate lcoations hence the need for the provision of an NFS server... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
