| Author |
Message
|
| lancelotlinc |
 Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| deepnair wrote: |
| Also if we go with broker then within borker only dynamic java invocation is being used. |
Your better off using WebSphere Process Server to do this rather than WebSphere Message Broker.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: Re: XI50 vs Broker |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| rekarm01 wrote: |
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| Xi50 is not an Enterprise Service Bus. ... Xi50 operates outside the secure zone and is an edge device used to validate traffic before it enters the secure zone. |
The xi50 (Integration Appliance) is an ESB. It generally operates inside the secure zone; the xs40 (XML Security Gateway) is better suited for the DMZ.
|
Thanks for confirming that. Its the way I thought they were used here too. The "I" in XI50 stood for (in my mind as a mental reminder) Integration, Inside the network. The "S" stood for Security, make that DMZ Safe.
| rekarm01 wrote: |
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| He is probably really asking, given optimal code, which platform can transform more transactions per second - WTX or WMB? |
Almost. The question concerned DataPower versus WMB - not WTX versus WMB. |
Hah. I didn't even notice I wrote that and was wondering why the heck is Jeff went off on that WTX tangent. I meant DataPower, but any conversation lately does always seem to include DP and WTX together. We're a big shop, we have both DataPower and WMB. I wish I was proficient in writing code for both and had the time to make my own little apple to orange comparison. I'd be rooting for WMB.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:13 pm Post subject: Re: XI50 vs Broker |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
Hah. I didn't even notice I wrote that and was wondering why the heck is Jeff went off on that WTX tangent. I meant DataPower, but any conversation lately does always seem to include DP and WTX together. We're a big shop, we have both DataPower and WMB. I wish I was proficient in writing code for both and had the time to make my own little apple to orange comparison. I'd be rooting for WMB. |
Rooting for WMB. I'd really be interested to see how that near wire speed XML transformation puts up with volume. Agreed XI50 is probably better and faster at handling schema verification and SSL encryption... but like Peter I'm really interested in the performance of those tricky COBOL to XML and XML to COBOL translations... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| joebuckeye |
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 365
Location: Columbus, OH
|
We have both WMB and numerous Xi50 Datapower appliances in house also.
WMB was here first and then DP was brought in later as a DMZ tool initially but then it was realized that DP could handle a lot of what was being asked of the broker to do so more and more work was being shifted to additional DP appliances. We have our DP broken into two groups, internal and external.
For a while work was directed to WMB if it was MQ based and DP if it was HTTP based but even MQ work is now being done on DP and the amount of WMB work we have been doing is decreasing. Most of this is because more of the groups we work with are shifting to building/calling web services as opposed to MQ based services.
One of the downsides to DP is that to expand capacity you have to purchase more appliances while with WMB you can (to certain limits) upgrade the server it is running on to get more capacity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| joebuckeye wrote: |
| One of the downsides to DP is that to expand capacity you have to purchase more appliances while with WMB you can (to certain limits) upgrade the server it is running on to get more capacity. |
Numerically speaking based on my experience and the new WMB 8 performance reports, WMB 8 instance on AIX standard hardware has 120 times the capacity of an Xi50 instance. WMB 8 instance on AIX POWER7 has 132 times the capacity of an Xi50 instance.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| joebuckeye wrote: |
We have both WMB and numerous Xi50 Datapower appliances in house also.
WMB was here first and then DP was brought in later as a DMZ tool initially but then it was realized that DP could handle a lot of what was being asked of the broker to do so more and more work was being shifted to additional DP appliances. We have our DP broken into two groups, internal and external.
For a while work was directed to WMB if it was MQ based and DP if it was HTTP based but even MQ work is now being done on DP and the amount of WMB work we have been doing is decreasing. Most of this is because more of the groups we work with are shifting to building/calling web services as opposed to MQ based services.
One of the downsides to DP is that to expand capacity you have to purchase more appliances while with WMB you can (to certain limits) upgrade the server it is running on to get more capacity. |
For each and every one of your paragraphs, I said to myself "Yup, same here."
Hey IBM WMB Hursley, I know DataPower and WMB are both IBM and it all goes into the same bank account regardless of which one is sold, but I think you might want to do a better job of promoting how much better WMB can be in certain scenarios, WHAT those scenarios are, and provide honest to goodness direct comparisons with numbers to back it up between DataPower and WMB. All in the interest of some friendly intra-IBM competition, ya know?
There seems to be a "the world is a nail and Datapower is the best hammer" mentality spreading out there. Yes, yes, I'm sure DP is the best tool for many jobs. Promote the jobs where WMB is better than DP, and show where WMB is faster than DP for the same jobs where both products are otherwise valid choices.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
And since not every shop has AIX or Z/OS and never will, please include Windows and Linux Brokers on some big honkin' servers. Better yet, let's see some use cases where WMB on virtual Windows, Linux or z/Linux sessions will out perform, given adequate vCPU and vMem. CIOs and CTOs will drool over anything virtual that performs as good or better than anything with another yet powercord and footprint in the datacenter, no matter how cool those blue and yellow pizza boxes look.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| And since not every shop has AIX or Z/OS and never will, please include Windows and Linux Brokers on some big honkin' servers. Better yet, let's see some use cases where WMB on virtual Windows, Linux or z/Linux sessions will out perform, given adequate vCPU and vMem. CIOs and CTOs will drool over anything virtual that performs as good or better than anything with another yet powercord and footprint in the datacenter, no matter how cool those blue and yellow pizza boxes look. |
Peter, I think you've been forgetting yourself there when talking about windows. MQ Performance reports show that Linux on the same type of hardware outperforms windows by a factor of 10 to 1, if I read them correctly... That makes me skeptical that windows would outperform DP (ever)...
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
Peter, I think you've been forgetting yourself there when talking about windows. MQ Performance reports show that Linux on the same type of hardware outperforms windows by a factor of 10 to 1, if I read them correctly... That makes me skeptical that windows would outperform DP (ever)... |
That maybe true but so many companies in the industry I now work in have drunk the Microsoft CoolAid by the gallon and are thus wedded to MSMQ, .Net, SQLServer and even (god forbid) BizTalk that moving to another platform is impossible.
Even the mere suggestion using Oracle is regarded as being close to an act of Herecy. The order of the day is multiple VM's of Server 2008 Clustered simply because it is easy. It is also hard to compete with WMQ & Broker in these situations because of the MS Licensing deals that are available.
The best description of MSMQ I read said, A developers wet dream and a management Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
The good news is that my Tickets for the Olympics are being delivered today.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| That maybe true but so many companies in the industry I now work in have drunk the Microsoft CoolAid by the gallon and are thus wedded to MSMQ, .Net, SQLServer and even (god forbid) BizTalk that moving to another platform is impossible. |
We have BizTalk because we "need" .NET support & the decision was made last year prior to the GA of WMBv8. God did not forbid it, and I think they're now up to 5 servers for 1 instance. In the interests of fairness I don't think that's all technical; I know bits of BizTalk apparently have to be physically sited on a different Windoze server to other bits but the rest is the team which owns the SQL Server (that BizTalk must have) won't allow any other stinkin' software on their box & other teams have similar objections but it's a lot of hardware for not a lot of (as yet) working functionality. After 5 months of patient work they're now less than 3 weeks from finishing.
My suggestion I could just pop a WMBv8 instance on 1 corner of 1 of their gargantuan machines & provide .NET support in a day or so has not met with the best response.
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| The best description of MSMQ I read said, A developers wet dream and a management Texas Chainsaw Massacre. |
That's much better than the Henry Ford-esq "seamless messaging between any application on any platform, as long as it's running on Windows"
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| The good news is that my Tickets for the Olympics are being delivered today. |
Will you be taking your Oyster card on the cable cars?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| Vitor wrote: |
Will you be taking your Oyster card on the cable cars? |
No. None of the venues I'm attending are served by the cable car.
You get a free All Zones travelcard for the days I'm going so I won't need my OysterCard.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| rekarm01 |
| Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: XI50 vs Broker |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 1415
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| It seems reasonable to attempt to make the comparison against the pieces of DataPower that provide the same functionality as WMB - which is mostly WTX. |
Not quite. DataPower supports a limited subset of WTX, typically used only for processing non-XML messages. But the OP asked about comparisons for XML to XML transformations; a DataPower developer would not normally use WTX for that, anymore than a WMB developer would use WTX for that.
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Promote the jobs where WMB is better than DP, and show where WMB is faster than DP for the same jobs where both products are otherwise valid choices. |
This link may offer some general guidelines as to which product(s) is/are a better fit. DataPower can typically outperform WMB when performing similar tasks, but for all that it does, it's still just a network appliance; DataPower's smaller capacity makes it ill-suited for too many longer-running transactions, (requiring some sort of throttling to slow down or reject incoming requests), and its security and strict wsdl/schema validation makes it ill-suited for logging, or error recovery, (as offending messages are discarded too quickly to be captured and logged). WMB offers more capacity, functionality, and more flexibility. DataPower can implement any message flow containing only SOAP, HTTP(S), XSLTransform or mapping nodes, but WMB can better handle more complex message flows requiring higher-level programming (ESQL, Java, .NET), aggregation, collection, try-catch, timer nodes, non-standard messaging, etc. Depending on the business requirements, DataPower can greatly reduce the WMB workload, but may not be able to replace WMB completely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
