| Author |
Message
|
| sijtom0703 |
 Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:44 am Post subject: Multi-instance Queue Manager failover configuration |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 84
Location: USA
|
I am setting up a multi instance queue manager environment with Qmgrs named QMGRA and QMGRA in two different hosts [different machines] in active-passive mode
The Active instance is connected to a remote Qmgr named QMGRB through Sender-Receiver Channels
An Application based on MQI programing model has to be connected to Active instance QMGRA
Which is the best possible way to connect Application to QMGRA. Through bindings or Client Connection??
What are the measures an Administrator can do to ensure proper failover for the Application.
Is it only making the Application configured as Reconnecting client?
How an Administrator can ensure failover without making changes in Application code?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
Your post highlights the conundrum between active-passive multi-instance configuration and active-active multi-instance configuration.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Ignore what lancelotlinc just said.
Your post illustrates that you've considered and designed and are building a proper high-availability solution for the queue manager.
Now you need to consider and design and build a proper high-availability solution for the application.
Nothing you've said gives any assistance for us in that respect.
First thing is - how do you even know that the application itself needs to be highly-available?
Second thing is - what are the actual requirements for the application? What is it's SLA? Can it be "unavailable" for less than a second? a full second? a full minute? a full hour? a full day?
Third thing is - does there have to be exactly and only one copy of the application running anywhere? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sijtom0703 |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 84
Location: USA
|
| I am digging into the requirements and as of now I haven't got the complete picture. Will be able to convey in the next few days. Considering the Application has to be highly available like Queue Managers and only one copy of Application is running what are your thoughts/recommendations.? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
It depends on the SLA.
If the app needs the absolute minimum downtime, then it needs the client reconnect option.
If the app can bear a slightly longer downtime, make it a qmgr service under control of the qmgr and make sure it lives on the shared file system, then it will stop and start during failover. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sijtom0703 |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 84
Location: USA
|
Thank you Let me see how it turns out.
I have read in this forum for Multi instance configuration in Windows the server has to be domain controller. That is another aspect I need to see how it goes with the requirement.
lancelotlinc I liked the word conundrum  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| sijtom0703 wrote: |
Thank you Let me see how it turns out.
I have read in this forum for Multi instance configuration in Windows the server has to be domain controller. That is another aspect I need to see how it goes with the requirement.
lancelotlinc I liked the word conundrum |
Depends on the MQ version. I believe this restriction has been lifted in MQ 7.1x 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| Depends on the MQ version. I believe this restriction has been lifted in MQ 7.1x |
Correct. An MI queue manager can now run on any machines in a domain.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| sijtom0703 wrote: |
| lancelotlinc I liked the word conundrum |
Thank you. Apparently mqjeff didn't. Which is ok by me, we just have a minor difference of opinion about cost-effective highly-available QMGRs.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| sijtom0703 wrote: |
| lancelotlinc I liked the word conundrum |
Thank you. Apparently mqjeff didn't. Which is ok by me, we just have a minor difference of opinion about cost-effective highly-available QMGRs. |
I think the point being made was that it doesn't matter how highly-available a queue manager is if the applications using it aren't. A lot of time and money can be spent ensuring the middleware is available and little, if any, thought is given to availability of the end-user ware.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rekarm01 |
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:55 am Post subject: Re: Multi-instance Queue Manager failover configuration |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 1415
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| Your post highlights the conundrum between active-passive multi-instance configuration and active-active multi-instance configuration. |
Again, it's not really an either-or question. The two different configurations solve two different problems: active-passive offers high message availability, and active-active offers high queue availability. A site may choose one, or the other, or both, (or neither), depending on its requirements.
| sijtom0703 wrote: |
| How an Administrator can ensure failover without making changes in Application code?? |
It's unlikely that a failover of any sort would be completely transparent to the application. Whether the application code needs changes or not depends somewhat on the requirements for application availability, and also how well the application currently handles error recovery in general. Check the InfoCenter for more details. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
