| Author |
Message
|
| telesguilherme |
 Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:55 am Post subject: Multi Instance Queue Manager |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 56
|
Dear All,
I´m finally planning to migrate my architecture to MI.
Server A, Server B, Suse Linux Enterprise 11 SP3, Websphere MQ 7.0.1.0
I have only two questions that i did not found in any documentation
1) Who mantains the management of the shared disk move ? I mean, when the failover happens, does the MQ handles this from server A to server B ? Or, the operating system has to do this ?
2) Who mantains the management of the Virtual IP address move ? I mean, when the failover happens, does the MQ handles this from server A to server B ? Or, the operating system has to do this ?
Thanks a Lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| zpat |
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5849
Location: UK
|
NFS does not move disks around. MQ simply gets a lock on the shared file system, whichever instance gets there first.
No VIP exists and no movement of IP takes place - this is a major disadvantage - and the reason we have kept using HA/CMP.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| telesguilherme |
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 56
|
zpat,
Thanks for the answer.
So the NFS file system can provide the apropriate locks between the two servers ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| telesguilherme wrote: |
| So the NFS file system can provide the apropriate locks between the two servers ? |
The Info Centre contains information on utilities provided with WMQ that can check whether the NFS used is compliant, or may be compliant. The Info Centre also contains a list of certified NFS solutions.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| JosephGramig |
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:33 am Post subject: Re: Multi Instance Queue Manager |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1230
Location: Gold Coast of Florida, USA
|
| telesguilherme wrote: |
| Server A, Server B, Suse Linux Enterprise 11 SP3, Websphere MQ 7.0.1.0 |
Apply the latest maintenance to WMQ or you will deeply regret not doing so...
Also, all Qmgrs and MQ Clients that connect need to be at least WMQ 7.0.1.X to respond correctly to a MI fail over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:50 am Post subject: Re: Multi Instance Queue Manager |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5849
Location: UK
|
| JosephGramig wrote: |
| Also, all Qmgrs and MQ Clients that connect need to be at least WMQ 7.0.1.X to respond correctly to a MI fail over. |
But that doesn't happen automatically for clients, unless they can use a CCDT with multiple connections addresses for a QM listed and the auto-reconnect feature.
95% of our MQ client applications can't use MI for one or more reasons - making it less than useful.
If an IBM'er was to knock up a support pac to allow MI to move an IP address with some sort of DNS updater - he/she would be a hero.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:06 am Post subject: Re: Multi Instance Queue Manager |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| zpat wrote: |
| If an IBM'er was to knock up a support pac to allow MI to move an IP address with some sort of DNS updater - he/she would be a hero. |
| Code: |
| DEFINE SERVICE(MOVE_IP) CONTROL(QMGR)... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| telesguilherme |
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 56
|
So, back to school. The BEST option will be to use HA.
I was loking for the High Availability Pack for Suse Enterprise. I think will suit my needs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JosephGramig |
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1230
Location: Gold Coast of Florida, USA
|
zpat,
I have been at sites that use an F5 in front of a Qmgr to maintain the IP/virtual host name with Multi Instance. It works and looks like a traditional HA solution. I forgot what the F5 was testing to make the determination as to which machine to route traffic to. It still requires the clients to handle/have reconnect logic and not swamp the Qmgr.
mqjeff,
Interesting suggestion... Perhaps this could inform the F5 that 'this' machine wants the traffic...
telesguilherme,
HA software often provides more advantages... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:50 am Post subject: Re: Multi Instance Queue Manager |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5849
Location: UK
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| zpat wrote: |
| If an IBM'er was to knock up a support pac to allow MI to move an IP address with some sort of DNS updater - he/she would be a hero. |
| Code: |
| DEFINE SERVICE(MOVE_IP) CONTROL(QMGR)... |
|
Yes, Jeff - that's how it would be invoked. The easy part.
Now provide the script that would update a DNS server to change a DNS alias from address A to address B.
Or even better (to avoid a DNS update delay) actually takeover the same IP as previously used by the other instance.
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| telesguilherme wrote: |
| So, back to school. The BEST option will be to use HA. |
No, a good option will be to use HA.
Just because a MI queue manager set up doesn't expose a virtual IP address doesn't mean it not a valid methodology. It's not suitible for all situations and other of my worthy associates have pointed out some of the common failing use cases, and possible workarounds.
Another common issue is that there's more software on a server than WMQ / WMB and you want that to be protected as well.
From what you've described you could use MI. You could equally use SUSE HA. Which is BEST can only be answered by you in reference to which meets your requirements, is easiest to install and configure, fits your application pattern, etc, etc, etc.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
