| Author |
Message
|
| nab054371 |
 Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:53 pm Post subject: WMQ Multi-Instance and clustering |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 173
|
Hi,
So I am being tasked with designing a solution comprising both WMQ HA and clustering. So the configuration would something like:
1) Machine a - QM1 --Active instance.
2) Machine b - QM1 --Standby instance.
3) Machine c - QM2 --Active instance.
4) Machine d - QM2 - standby instance.
So that was the easy part. Now coming to clustering, I get the impression that both QM1 active and standby instances will have the same QMID (given that they share data and logs) but different IP's (and hostnames) as would be the case with QM2. So my question is - how do I go about designing clustering solution in such a situation given that all QM instances will have different IP's and hostnames it is required to specify hostname or IP (in channel definitions) when configuring a clustering solution?
Please pardon my ignorance if it seems like a very amateur question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
Have you tested MI connectivity using just vanilla SDR/RCVR channel pairs, and observed what happens when you 'fail-over'? Have you tested MI connectivity using CLUSSDR/CLUSRCVR channels, and observed what happens when you 'fail-over'? It doesn't take very long to do.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| nab054371 |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 173
|
| So obviously not - I am looking for input from someone who has though. I f not then that would be my next step. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| nab054371 wrote: |
| ...that would be my next step. |
That should have been your first step 
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
CONNAME has been expanded to support more than one ipaddress(port) combination, across all channel types that use it.
It's a basic understanding of how MI works that this is possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| nab054371 |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 173
|
[quote="exerk"][quote="nab054371"]...that would be my next step.[/quote]
That should have been your first step :wink:[/quote]
Thank you for that advice - although I was looking for something more than "that should be your first step". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| nab054371 wrote: |
| exerk wrote: |
| nab054371 wrote: |
| ...that would be my next step. |
That should have been your first step |
Thank you for that advice - although I was looking for something more than "that should be your first step". |
You're welcome! It took me about ten minutes to create a small cluster of MI and non-MI queue managers to test - just to see how long it would take - and using the non-MI queue managers as FRs of course.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| nab054371 |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 173
|
| ok so thats really what I was looking for. So the FR's must be non MI QM's then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| nab054371 wrote: |
| So the FR's must be non MI QM's then? |
I'm sure I've read somewhere that using MI queue managers as FRs is not recommended, now desperately trying to find where I read it!
_________________
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 |
|
|
| nab054371 |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 173
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| nab054371 wrote: |
| http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg27018127&aid=1 |
Knew I'd seen it somewhere, thank you! And in answer to your question, yes, have two additional queue managers, but there's no reason they can't be 'local' on the same servers as will host the MI queue manager instances - you're unlikely to concurrently lose both servers.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| nab054371 |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 173
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
Possibly the earlier advice not to use MI queue managers as FRs harks back to the days when a site might have a mix of WMQ versions, so having read the relevant section in the Info Centre I rescind my view that FRs should not be MI queue managers - every day a school day!
_________________
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 |
|
|
| nab054371 |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Posts: 173
|
| Yup, I agree. I think I am going with 7.1 InfoCenter. So I am going to try configuring QM1 and QM2 MI QM's in FR capacity and see how it goes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| nab054371 wrote: |
| Yup, I agree. I think I am going with 7.1 InfoCenter. So I am going to try configuring QM1 and QM2 MI QM's in FR capacity and see how it goes. |
Bear in mind the Info Centre's best practices qualification in regard to separating FR queue managers and application queue managers...
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
