| Author |
Message
|
| praveenchhangani |
 Posted: Fri May 23, 2003 5:12 am Post subject: FULL AUDIT_TO_DB vs. FULL AUDIT_TO_MQ |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 192
Location: Chicago, IL
|
Any thoughts, which one is better, why?
In the past, we have found FULL AUDIT_TO_DB to be quite risky especially if you are unaware that this feature exists in the .fdl being installed. It pretty much tends to log the whole world and fills up file systems (even on aix) if not handled the proper way.
Just curious to know what others have considered when have to use either one of the above and why? Thanks.
_________________
Praveen K. Chhangani,
IBM Certified Solutions Designer -
MQ Workflow 3.4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| sshaker |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 185
|
with audit to mq.. u have mq advantage.. and flexibility.. given a chance mq looks a better option anyday..
regards
shaker
_________________
shaker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| manoj |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 30 Jan 2002
Posts: 237
Location: Virgina
|
Audit to mq gives you the option of designing a seperate application for reporting. i mean that application does not directly interact with the workflow database.
_________________
-manoj |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Audit to MQ can be 30% more overhead than Audit to DB
BE AWARE.... I'm not saying don't use it.... just that it costs more from an overhead point of view.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sshaker |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 20 Sep 2002
Posts: 185
|
hi john,
how ur arriving at the figure 30% !!
i think it is better we look at the pros and cons.. and use which is appropriate for a situation... i came across some installation where there is not much mq expertise.. though most of the places.. mq is in place before workflow is being implemented.. in cases where mq is not widespread.. people prefer to deal with database.. as db resources.. are obvious in any organization.. unlike mq
regards
shaker
_________________
shaker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jmac |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Jun 2001
Posts: 3081
Location: EmeriCon, LLC
|
Shaker:
The 30% comes from IBM. They indicate an overhead of 10 to 30% for using Audit to MQ vs 4 to 5% for Audit to DB. It may have been in the IBM newsgroup.
_________________
John McDonald
RETIRED
Last edited by jmac on Mon May 26, 2003 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MaheshPN |
| Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 8:55 am Post subject: FULL AUDIT_TO_DB vs. FULL AUDIT_TO_MQ |
|
|
Master
Joined: 21 May 2003
Posts: 245
Location: Charlotte, NC
|
Hi,
If you want to publish the audit data(Topic based) or want to sent to WMQI for further processing AUDIT_TO_MQ is appropriate.
Mahesh
IBM Certified Solution Expert - MQWorkflow |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
