Author |
Message
|
dprogwmb |
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:47 am Post subject: Robust Production Architecture for Message Broker 7 |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 19 Jul 2011 Posts: 96
|
Hi all,
I'm working in a big bank , for defining the architecture of the Integration Platform... and I'm thinking in the BEST architecture to propose to support the high volume of requests (Around 130 applications)/reponses to/from Message Broker...
Is it possible to use N Active Broker and N passive Broker and have them gruped by pairs:
BrokerInst1 (active) BrokerInst1 (passive)
BrokerInst2 (active) BrokerInst2 (passive)
BrokerInst3 (active) BrokerInst3 (passive)
.....
And have before the Broker a "Load Balancer" (like an F5), that re-directs to any of the active instances (BrokerInst1, BrokerInst2 , ... BrokerInstN )...
But I will have to implement any kind of logic in the F5, to detect the Active instaces of the Broker, and in that case I will be having overhead in that point...
I'm thinking of using the native solution of Message Broker (Active-Pasive)... with NFS... or should I consider using other solution like HACMP?
Can you help me with this problem ,please?
Or can you send any general robust arquitecture for Message Broker in production environment?
Any help will be really apreciated!!
Regards |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mqjeff |
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008 Posts: 17447
|
This is the kind of thing that many of the posters here receive a generous hourly rate for providing.
It also appears to be the kind of thing that someone else is paying you a generous hourly rate or yearly salary to come up with.
There's reasonable discussion on how to configure a Broker to be highly available in the Info Center.
You can not make any assumptions about routing network traffic to a Broker without having first decided what transport that network traffic is being provided by. HTTP <> MQ <> SMTP <> JMS <> shared files <> CICS <> CORBA.
Best of luck with your reading, thinking, and trying! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
adubya |
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 25 Aug 2011 Posts: 377 Location: GU12, UK
|
What's wrong with MQ clustering for your load balancing ? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mqjeff |
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008 Posts: 17447
|
adubya wrote: |
What's wrong with MQ clustering for your load balancing ? |
Aside from the fact that it doesn't help with SOAP-over-HTTP? Nothing. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
adubya |
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 25 Aug 2011 Posts: 377 Location: GU12, UK
|
mqjeff wrote: |
adubya wrote: |
What's wrong with MQ clustering for your load balancing ? |
Aside from the fact that it doesn't help with SOAP-over-HTTP? Nothing. |
Yes, I had a "doh" moment not long after posting Must be beer time. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
smdavies99 |
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003 Posts: 6076 Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
mqjeff wrote: |
You can not make any assumptions about routing network traffic to a Broker without having first decided what transport that network traffic is being provided by. HTTP <> MQ <> SMTP <> JMS <> shared files <> CICS <> CORBA.
Best of luck with your reading, thinking, and trying! |
These are a few of the issues that need to be considered.
however, I find it strange that your 'Big Bank' does not already have all this sort of stuff sorted out...
As has been said, some of us earn our crust doing this sort of thing. If I told you everything you need to know free of charge, (as the saying goes,) I'd have to kill you (I am joking...) _________________ WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lancelotlinc |
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 Posts: 4941 Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
If I am correct in my assumption of the client you are working for, (you can tell me if I am right), the bank currently uses active-active. Why are you recommending they change that?
The bank geographically disperses traffic to three locations in the US and two locations in Europe. Active-active is far superior to active-passive.
If you have been entrusted with architecting a multi-trillion dollar daily cash-flow system, why are you posting on a message board asking for advice? _________________ http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|