| Author |
Message
|
| PeterPotkay |
 Posted: Tue Oct 01, 2013 6:32 pm Post subject: SOAP nodes can use broker-wide HTTP listener - should they? |
 |
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wmbhelp/v8r0m0/topic/com.ibm.etools.mft.doc/bb23760_.htm
| Quote: |
Fix pack V8.0.0.1 enhancements
SOAP nodes can use the broker-wide HTTP listener
You can configure your execution groups so that the SOAP nodes use the broker-wide HTTP listener to process HTTP messages, rather than the execution group listener. Using the broker-wide listener can simplify the administration of your broker configuration. For more information, see HTTP listeners.
|
In WMB 6.1, SOAP nodes forced us to use embeded Listeners in Execution Groups. But in 8.0.0.1 we no longer have tha restriction
So, what are the considerations in having all our SOAP nodes share the same Listener as the one Broker level one already being used for plain HTTP? It would simplify administration not having to set and then keep track of these SOAP specific ports. But the Info Center doesn't offer up any cons on why we should not do this.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
I've always felt good about using the EG listener since my flows and functionality are grouped into EGs and if one listener went down, others would still function.
Its like having six eggs or half-dozen eggs. Both sets of eggs taste good when cooked well. Sunny side up please.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| slonkoski |
| Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 52
|
| Is it safe to assume no (obvious) performance gains or hits with either solution? eggs are eggs? My gut tells me listeners at the EG level may make more sense, but I do prefer simple solutions if they work |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
I've always felt good about using the EG listener since my flows and functionality are grouped into EGs and if one listener went down, others would still function.
|
And if that one listener goes down and the others are still up you'll bemoan the fact that you have your own listener. Is there any reason to think that something that takes out one listener wouldn't take out all of them?
A single listener is simpler to implement, simpler to understand, less to keep track of and less to document. In other words, less oppourtunity for people to screw up, the number one reason you might have an unplanned outage.
If a single listener has the capacity to handle all the workload that multiple individual ones could, why not use just one?
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
So originally, the SOAP listener was put in for two reasons (at least as far as I understand it) - The HTTP listener shipped didn't support WS functionality and it was easier to implement a new one that did
- The http listener uses queues to communicate with the flows in each EG, and it was faster to inline the listener into the EG process
Having spent a lot of time arguing with the lab that they should make it easy and simple to export the configuration of a Broker's HTTP topology, so it can be imported and used from WAS or Apache, I still prefer the option of doing so over mucking around too much otherwise.
So I'd opt to implement EG-level listeners for all HTTP traffic and use the export function to put a three-tier architecture in place to load balance calls from a single endpoint.
But that's just me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
We've decided to go with the embedded listeners versus the Broker wide listener on our new WMB servers.
On our old Brokers where we used the one broker wise listener we would set things like maxThreads and MaxPostSize.
Looking at the WMB 8 InfoCenter for Execution group HTTP listener parameters:
http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wmbhelp/v7r0m0/topic/com.ibm.etools.mft.doc/an09148_.htm
I don't see either of these as a settable parameter at the EG level.
However, when I run the following command it does appear an EG has many parameters not documented in the InfoCenter, including maxThreads and MaxPostSize. Are these OK to set at the EG level? Is their omission in the InfoCenter article on setting EG level HTTP parameters intentional?
| Code: |
mqsireportproperties MYBROKER -e MY_EG1 -o HTTPConnector -r
HTTPConnector
uuid='HTTPConnector'
userTraceLevel='none'
traceLevel='none'
userTraceFilter='none'
traceFilter='none'
port='0'
address=''
allowTrace=''
maxPostSize=''
acceptCount=''
bufferSize=''
compressableMimeTypes=''
compression=''
connectionLinger=''
connectionTimeout=''
maxHttpHeaderSize=''
maxKeepAliveRequests=''
maxSpareThreads=''
maxThreads=''
minSpareThreads=''
noCompressionUserAgents=''
restrictedUserAgents=''
socketBuffer=''
tcpNoDelay=''
explicitlySetPortNumber='9999'
enableLookups=''
enableMQListener=''
shutdownDelay=''
allowCrossConnectorPolling=''
autoRespondHTTPHEADRequests=''
BIP8071I: Successful command completion.
|
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Are these OK to set at the EG level? |
I believe the answer is yes.
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Is their omission in the InfoCenter article on setting EG level HTTP parameters intentional? |
I believe the answer is no, or at least "not exactly". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Simbu |
| Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Posts: 289
Location: Tamil Nadu, India
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
Is their omission in the InfoCenter article on setting EG level HTTP parameters intentional?
|
May be thats there is a technote on this.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
I submitted feedback on that article in the InfoCenter asking that it includes info on every parameter that can be set.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
