| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| MQ 7 v 7.5 queue storage difference |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| rammer |
 Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:09 am Post subject: MQ 7 v 7.5 queue storage difference |
 |
|
Partisan
Joined: 02 May 2002
Posts: 359
Location: England
|
Hi everyone, I have checked through the Info Centre for "Changed behaviour between 7.0 and 7.5 but can not see it mentioned.
It looks to me that IBM have changed the strucutre of the queue directory from 7 to 7.5 for local queues but would just like one of you experts to confirm my eyes are not deceiving me
example (AIX)
MQ 7
/var/mqm/qmgrs/TESTQM/queues/TEST.INPUT.DATA/q with data stored on the local queue being in q
MQ7.5
/var/mqm/qmgrs/TESTQM/queues/TEST.INPUT.DATA with data stored on the local queue being in q name ie TEST.INPUT.DATA
More interested rather than it being a issue.
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
correct. filenames and loccation are found through dspmqfls command
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:13 pm Post subject: Re: MQ 7 v 7.5 queue storage difference |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| rammer wrote: |
Hi everyone, I have checked through the Info Centre for "Changed behaviour between 7.0 and 7.5 but can not see it mentioned.
It looks to me that IBM have changed the strucutre of the queue directory from 7 to 7.5 for local queues but would just like one of you experts to confirm my eyes are not deceiving me |
I looks like this is an internal change that should not affect any users of MQ. Transparent internal changes are not usually mentioned in the changed behaviour between versions, otherwise there would be dozens of them listed !
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
All that IBM is obligated to do is to make WMQ behave as documented in the relevant manuals. Exactly how IBM makes WMQ internals behave is proprietary. A classic example is how WMQ stores messages in the filesystem, and the little q/big Q artifact.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| Andyh |
| Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 239
|
The change to using a file per queue, rather than a sub-directory per queue, is related to the ability of some unix systems to host much larger numbers of files in a directory, than sub-directories in a directory.
For MQ systems with very large numbers of dynamic queues the sub-directory per MQ object approach could cause an artificial scalability constraint. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
