ASG
IBM
Zystems
Cressida
Icon
Netflexity
 
  MQSeries.net
Search  Search       Tech Exchange      Education      Certifications      Library      Info Center      SupportPacs      LinkedIn  Search  Search                                                                   FAQ  FAQ   Usergroups  Usergroups
 
Register  ::  Log in Log in to check your private messages
 
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support RSS Feed - Message Broker Support

MQSeries.net Forum Index » General IBM MQ Support » Channel trigger in XMITQ

Post new topic  Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 Channel trigger in XMITQ « View previous topic :: View next topic » 
Author Message
roshan.171188
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:44 pm    Post subject: Channel trigger in XMITQ Reply with quote

Apprentice

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 35

Hi all,

Can u please tell me what is the difference between triggering a channel by defining a process to initiate the channel and directly invoking the channel by mentioning its name in the TRIGDATA param of the xmitQ?

i can only see that they both r the same, but then y would neone want to create an xtra object to do the same work?

Thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

WebSphere comes with a special trigger monitor to start channels. It is called a channel initiator. It is different from the trigger monitor that starts applications.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roshan.171188
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Apprentice

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 35

Thanks bruce, i know that!

runmqchi can be triggered via TRIGDATA and a separate process object too, i am just looking for a difference btw the two.
defining a separate process must have an advantage over the former coz i've seen it being used in major infrastructures (i mean if they create an extra object to serve the same purpose, there should definitely be a reason?).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
exerk
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:02 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339

roshan.171188 wrote:
...defining a separate process must have an advantage over the former coz i've seen it being used in major infrastructures (i mean if they create an extra object to serve the same purpose, there should definitely be a reason?).

At versions previous to V5.3 (but my memory may be a little hazy here) the only way to trigger a channel was by using a process, and if you still see a process being used then generally it's because either old habits die hard (it's in the standards doc and the 'requirement' has never been reviewed), or that the queue manager has been migrated through versions.
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:11 am    Post subject: Re: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA

exerk wrote:
At versions previous to V5.3 (but my memory may be a little hazy here) the only way to trigger a channel was by using a process, and if you still see a process being used then generally it's because either old habits die hard (it's in the standards doc and the 'requirement' has never been reviewed), or that the queue manager has been migrated through versions.



_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

Me, too.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jcv
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Channel trigger in XMITQ Reply with quote

Chevalier

Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 411
Location: Zagreb

roshan.171188 wrote:
i can only see that they both r the same, ...

They both are not optimal. If you can, leave trigdata blank too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
exerk
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Channel trigger in XMITQ Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339

jcv wrote:
They both are not optimal. If you can, leave trigdata blank too.

For the wider audience, would you please justify why? Thank you.
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
PeterPotkay
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Channel trigger in XMITQ Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722

exerk wrote:
jcv wrote:
They both are not optimal. If you can, leave trigdata blank too.

For the wider audience, would you please justify why? Thank you.


The bigger question is, how?
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
exerk
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:13 am    Post subject: Re: Channel trigger in XMITQ Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339

PeterPotkay wrote:
exerk wrote:
jcv wrote:
They both are not optimal. If you can, leave trigdata blank too.

For the wider audience, would you please justify why? Thank you.


The bigger question is, how?

From the Info Centre "...If you do not specify a channel name, the channel initiator searches the channel definition files until it finds a channel that is associated with the named transmission queue..."
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
jcv
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chevalier

Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 411
Location: Zagreb

It is more convenient to me, for obvious reasons. There is no significant difference for me if channel initiator does that search prior to channel start, so I let it do that search. Do you gain much if you don't use that possibility?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
exerk
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339

jcv wrote:
It is more convenient to me, for obvious reasons.

Sorry, obvious to you maybe, but not obvious to me...

jcv wrote:
There is no significant difference for me if channel initiator does that search prior to channel start, so I let it do that search.

...valid for your setup but not necessarily so for others...

jcv wrote:
Do you gain much if you don't use that possibility?

...it could be argued that the channel table look-up will be slower than the direct use of the TRIGDATA attribute, and my comment regarding multiple channels, same XMITQ.
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
PeterPotkay
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722

If I'm dealing with a cranky XMITQ its easier to see which channel its associated with by looking at the XMITQ definition versus listing all the SNDR and SVR channels and starting to look at their definitions one...by one...by one...by one..until I find that match.

Sure it'll work if you don't specify it. But I think its always better to explicitly set something versus relying on defaults and relying on one's recollection of what those defaults are: Syncpoints, port #s, persistence, priority, expiry, channel to xmitq relationships, etc.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

Omitting the channel name in the trigdata field doesn't seem to offer any advantages for administrators.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jcv
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chevalier

Joined: 07 May 2007
Posts: 411
Location: Zagreb

There's no argue about it, it will be slower, insignificantly to me, significantly to you, others will decide for themselves. The question was "Do you gain much if..." (in ms), not "What do you gain if...", because that is obvious.
Multiple channels+same xmitq=not of much relevance to me, at least until now. Can you describe the way you make use of it, please?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic  Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next Page 1 of 3

MQSeries.net Forum Index » General IBM MQ Support » Channel trigger in XMITQ
Jump to:  



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
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP
 
 


Theme by Dustin Baccetti
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Copyright © MQSeries.net. All rights reserved.