ASG
IBM
Zystems
Cressida
Icon
Netflexity
 
  MQSeries.net
Search  Search       Tech Exchange      Education      Certifications      Library      Info Center      SupportPacs      LinkedIn  Search  Search                                                                   FAQ  FAQ   Usergroups  Usergroups
 
Register  ::  Log in Log in to check your private messages
 
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support RSS Feed - Message Broker Support

MQSeries.net Forum Index » General IBM MQ Support » MQ Loadbalancing 2 qmgrs on network...

Post new topic  Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
 MQ Loadbalancing 2 qmgrs on network... « View previous topic :: View next topic » 
Author Message
rcp_mq
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:05 am    Post subject: MQ Loadbalancing 2 qmgrs on network... Reply with quote

Centurion

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 133

After a series of excruciating efforts including several redundant posts on mqseries.net...

Our company has decided to use F5 for loadbalancing in MQ.
We are able to connect to MQSERVER without CCDT ...without any Client...without Java classes...without HA...without HTTP bridges(what?!...phew!)
...
My question is, according to IBM one many not have two similar qmgrs (same name et al.) on the same network (so distributed queueing is possible).

For F5 implementation, our developer said 2 similar qmgrs are required on a certain(single network). But they pesterd us and we set it up. Now we are to able perform distributed message passing. (details excluded)

I'm a little perplexed and am expected to answer how it worked. So, my answer is, perhaps they are exploiting an unknown loophole.

Could anyone help substantiate/rectify my answer?


Last edited by rcp_mq on Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mqjeff
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand Master

Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447

You will run into problems in the following cases.
  1. You try to put the F5 between queue managers, rather than between a client and a queue manager.
  2. you try to create an MQ cluster with two queue managers that have the same name
  3. you try to route messages from one queue manager to another queue manager that has the same name.
.

Note that there remains a significant difference between the name of the queue manager that an application connects to and the name of any queue manager that an application addresses messages to.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rcp_mq
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Centurion

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 133

Quote:
Note that there remains a significant difference between the name of the queue manager that an application connects to and the name of any queue manager that an application addresses messages to.


Why would you connect to an application if you don't wish to put messages into it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:26 am    Post subject: Re: MQ Loadbalancing 2 qmgrs on network... Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA

rcp_mq wrote:
We are able to connect to MQSERVER without CCDT ...without any Client...without Java classes...without HA...without HTTP bridges(what?!...phew!)


Please post how you've achieved this. Especially how you've managed to use MQSERVER and not have it create a CCDT for it's own use. Also what you're using as client software without the client / Java classes.

It's an interesting and impressive achievement.

rcp_mq wrote:
My question is, according to IBM one many not have two similar qmgrs (same name et al.) on the same network (so distributed queueing is possible).


No, you may not have two same named queue managers in the same WMQ domain so that addressing is possible. Distributed queuing is possible with 2 similar named queue managers, the messages just don't arrive anywhere good....

You find most queue managers on most estates are identical (within TEST, QA, PROD, etc) except for name because best practice is to build them via scripts.

rcp_mq wrote:
For F5 implementation, our developer said 2 similar qmgrs are required on a certain(single network). But they pesterd us and we set it up. Now we are to able perform distributed message passing. (details excluded)


If the 2 queue managers have no knowledge of each other (i.e. each in their own domain) it works fine. Odd and not best practice because it reduces the usefulness of the queue manager.

But given your compant has decided not to use the expensive load balancing built into WMQ despite paying for it but to buy, install and maintain an F5 I doubt reducing the utility of a queue manager bothers them.

Note that while an F5 is fine with client connections (though it reduces the utility of your WMQ investment still further), queue manager to queue manager connections are not possible through an F5. Well they're possible in that you can point the channels through the F5 like you can any network traffic, but the channels will fail.

Of course, if you were using a CCDT you could alias the names and have 2 different queue managers with the same connection name.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zpat
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK

It's absolute nonsense that you can't have two QMGRs on the same network with the same name. Unless by "network" you mean an interconnected set of MQ channels, rather than a LAN or WAN.

We have all our production QMs replicated at a hot DR site. We refer the DNS alias to the currently live site. If we choose to use DR we repoint the DNS at the other site.

Therefore all of our production queue managers have two copies running with the same QM name. Only one of these processes actual live business messages and is connected to other live queue managers.

However I can access both of them at once using MO71, explorer etc for admin purposes, if I so wish (obviously care is needed!).

As for "IBM don't recommend".. etc - odd that the IBM manual actually has an example of a CCDT with two entries for the same QM at different IP addresses.

There really isn't an issue here - providing you don't get them mixed up or interconnected.

What you don't want to do is try and use both inside a single load-balanced layout at the same time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA

rcp_mq wrote:
Quote:
Note that there remains a significant difference between the name of the queue manager that an application connects to and the name of any queue manager that an application addresses messages to.


Why would you connect to an application if you don't wish to put messages into it?


What my most worthy associate is pointing out (as I did) is that the application can believe it's connected to a queue manager called FRED but is in fact connected to a queue manager called FLOPSY.THE.CALICO.BUNNY.

Likewise it can address a message to a queue called INVOICES hosted by a queue manager called BILLING, and the message can legitimately arrive on a queue called FARM.EQUIPTMENT.INVOICES hosted on a queue manager called PUFF.THE.MAGIC.DRAGON.

Clearly in both of these cases you'd want to hospitalize whoever's in charge of queue manager naming standards, but you see the point.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

Where I've seen IBM doc recommend not having qmgrs with the same name is with WMQ clusters and cluster object definitions - and subsequently trying to separate one of them from a cluster.
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
rcp_mq
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Centurion

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 133

@Vitor
Quote:
Distributed queuing is possible with 2 similar named queue managers, the messages just don't arrive anywhere good....

That is not guarenteed delivery, which is the crux of distributed queueing.

Quote:
But given your compant has decided not to use the expensive load balancing built into WMQ despite paying for it but to buy

do you mean expansive? as in clustering? please correct me.

Quote:
Of course, if you were using a CCDT you could alias the names and have 2 different queue managers with the same connection name.

CCDT is Houdini

@zpat
Quote:
We have all our production QMs replicated at a hot DR site. We refer the DNS alias to the currently live site. If we choose to use DR we repoint the DNS at the other site.
One(single) is IP a requirement.

Quote:
There really isn't an issue here - providing you don't get them mixed up or interconnected.
Exactly what i've communicated

@bruce
Quote:
Where I've seen IBM doc recommend not having qmgrs with the same name is with WMQ clusters and cluster object definitions - and subsequently trying to separate one of them from a cluster.

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wmqv7/v7r0/topic/com.ibm.mq.amqzag.doc/fa10860_.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rcp_mq
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Centurion

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 133

...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA

rcp_mq wrote:
Quote:
Distributed queuing is possible with 2 similar named queue managers, the messages just don't arrive anywhere good....

That is not guarenteed delivery, which is the crux of distributed queueing.


I was pointing out you could still put messages so it works in that sense. You're correct that it works in the same way getting more speed out of a car by strapping a rocket onto it works....

rcp_mq wrote:
Quote:
But given your compant has decided not to use the expensive load balancing built into WMQ despite paying for it but to buy

do you mean expansive? as in clustering? please correct me.


No, I meant expensive. You're paying a lot for your WMQ licences. What you've achieved with the F5 comes free with those licenses, but the F5s & their support are an additional cost on your company.

rcp_mq wrote:
Quote:
Of course, if you were using a CCDT you could alias the names and have 2 different queue managers with the same connection name.

CCDT is Houdini


And very useful.

I'm still looking forward to your explaination of how you've avoided a CCDT and the use of any client side code.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA

rcp_mq wrote:
One(single) is IP a requirement.


One single IP, or one single DNS?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rcp_mq
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Centurion

Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 133

One single IP.

Quote:
It's an interesting and impressive achievement.

Thanks. (ingenious...i'm so proud)
It's a rather simple solution. I WILL share it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

rcp_mq wrote:
@Vitor
Quote:
Distributed queuing is possible with 2 similar named queue managers, the messages just don't arrive anywhere good....

That is not guarenteed delivery, which is the crux of distributed queueing.

WMQ does not guarantee delivery. It assures delivery. There is a presumption that the message arrives on the intended destination qmgr.

The problem that might occur is if the message arrives on a (multi-hop) qmgr by the exact name as the destination qmgr, but there is no queue to match the destination queue name.

Quote:
@bruce
Quote:
Where I've seen IBM doc recommend not having qmgrs with the same name is with WMQ clusters and cluster object definitions - and subsequently trying to separate one of them from a cluster.

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wmqv7/v7r0/topic/com.ibm.mq.amqzag.doc/fa10860_.htm

Note that the URL you reference does not identify any/all of the reasons that you should not name qmgrs the same name. It does warn you that there will be no check made to determine if a same-named qmgr exists elsewhere in your network.
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
mqjeff
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand Master

Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447

A client application does not need to know any information about an actual queue manager other than the network address to reach it by - the hostname,channel,and port usually.

The queue manager name is entirely irrelevant to the connection, from a client application.

The destination address of any MQ message is exactly one of two things: {queue,queue manager}, {topic}.

The name of both the queue and the queue manager in {queue,queue manager} has no connection to the real name of any of the queue managers at a given enterprise nor any connection to the real name of any queues at a given enterprise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA

rcp_mq wrote:
One single IP.


So your company doesn't want to get full value from it's DNS any more than it wants to fully leverage WMQ?

Must be some kinda cash-rich business....
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic  Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2

MQSeries.net Forum Index » General IBM MQ Support » MQ Loadbalancing 2 qmgrs on network...
Jump to:  



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP
 
 


Theme by Dustin Baccetti
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Copyright © MQSeries.net. All rights reserved.