| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| C++ XMS support |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| George Carey |
 Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 9:21 am Post subject: C++ XMS support |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 500
Location: DC
|
There is documentation out that says C++ MQ clients using XMS will not work with MQ server 7.1.0.0 without a fixpack required. Is it a client fix or a server fix pack required?
_________________
"Truth is ... grasping the virtually unconditioned",
Bernard F. Lonergan S.J.
(from book titled "Insight" subtitled "A Study of Human Understanding") |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| George Carey |
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:04 am Post subject: Resolved |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 500
Location: DC
|
Never mind to original question as the v7.1.0.1 client is working with MQv7.1.0.0 server for C++ XMS connections.
Different but related question on same thread(may be a mistake).
1.) How would(what are the options) for a C++ XMS clients to connect with a Multi-Instance queue manager. Namely when a Linux box A with QMA fails over to Linux box A' QMA' what needs to be done to C++ XMS code to allow the clients to fail over.
a.) setup a proper CCDT table,
b.) modify the Connection Factory in some way to go from IP-A to IP-A' if connection failure
c.) use a simple MQSERVER env. variable with a connection list (A(port),A'(port) setup? Are any or all of these to be used for this capability
2.) Same question for AppServer with MDB connections to MQ with RA
3.) (Tougher Question) Assume there are only Three Linux servers for the MI setup of two Queue Managers. QMA on A box , QMB on B box and both failover to Linux box C where QMA' and QMB' might both end up running on same linux box C. Which of the above 3 client connection options can now be used, if any? Two separate shares are created to do the failover but what mechanism can be used so they failback. (e.g. only one channel can be defined with MQSERVER env variable and only one CCDT per box (or not on MQv7.1 but mutiple clientconn channels in one CCDT!), Connection Factory??)
Will a A,B,C MI scenario work for failover and fail back and Clients be able to follow? (Snd/Rcvr channels should work with simple client list on conname)
Some simple questions!!
_________________
"Truth is ... grasping the virtually unconditioned",
Bernard F. Lonergan S.J.
(from book titled "Insight" subtitled "A Study of Human Understanding") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You should really pay someone to come in and spend three days going over this with you. I know, I know, government budget, etc. etc. etc., but it's worth your time not to miss the small details here.
Both XMS and JMS should be agnostic to the method of providing connection information. So it should not matter significantly *how* you provide a connection list with more than one IP(port) address on it - CCDT, directly in the connection factory, or through MQSERVER. But MQSERVER is in general not recommended, as it's a bit of a broad brush for painting small flowers.
Please note that I am being very explicit with the words 'should be' and 'should not'.
When designing an HA configuration of two queue managers where at any point in time the two queue managers might be on the same box (i.e. whether or not you have two, three, or more machines...), there's only one real concern to keep in mind.
You always need to make sure from the outset that the queue managers will NEVER use the SAME port number.
Outside of that, the considerations of setting up a single queue manager under HA apply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
