| Author |
Message
|
| telesguilherme |
 Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:29 am Post subject: Multi-Instance withou NFS |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 56
|
Dear Group Experts,
Once i have created a topic with building an infrastruture with MI. Now my doubt is (i did not found in any redbooks, and ibm docs), how is possible to achieve MI without NFS.
The problem is that my client dont trust NFS at all.
For my production environment i have:
2 MQ v7.5 servers
2 IIB v9 servers
We have RedHat 6.4 Enterprise, but not the cluster pack. Since, we could not use HA.
Any suggestions ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:53 am Post subject: Re: Multi-Instance withou NFS |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| telesguilherme wrote: |
| how is possible to achieve MI without NFS. |
It isn't.
| telesguilherme wrote: |
| The problem is that my client dont trust NFS at all. |
Why not? Savaged by NFS as a baby? Suspects NFS of involvement in the JFK assassination?
| telesguilherme wrote: |
| Any suggestions ? |
Clearly some kind of active/active across the 2 standalone servers is your best & only option.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:56 am Post subject: Re: Multi-Instance withou NFS |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| telesguilherme wrote: |
| The problem is that my client dont trust NFS at all. |
NFS v4 is the WMQ MI requirement. Which NFS don't they trust? Perhaps your client was bitten by NFS v3 or earlier.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| telesguilherme |
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 56
|
Thank you all for the answers.
My customer will buy the HA add-on for Red Hat, but for now i will create Queue Manager Clusters.
Another doubt is what could be the best model for connecting:
2 MQ Servers, configured with Queue Manager Cluster
and
2 Brokers servers, logically with MQ Local queue.
Options for the flow of the queues ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| telesguilherme wrote: |
| My customer will buy the HA add-on for Red Hat... |
This will provide for HA queue managers etc...
| telesguilherme wrote: |
| ...but for now i will create Queue Manager Clusters. |
...which will not, it's only load-balancing.
| telesguilherme wrote: |
Another doubt is what could be the best model for connecting:
2 MQ Servers, configured with Queue Manager Cluster
and
2 Brokers servers, logically with MQ Local queue.
Options for the flow of the queues ? |
HA your queue managers and your Brokers
_________________
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 |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| telesguilherme wrote: |
Another doubt is what could be the best model for connecting:
2 MQ Servers, configured with Queue Manager Cluster |
WMQ clusters require that each and every qmgr in the cluster have a CLUSSDR sender channels to a full-repository, and CLUSRCVR channel that points back to itself. How to do this is well-documented here and in the InfoCenter.
Is that what you are asking?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| telesguilherme |
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 56
|
Well, more or less.
My primary doubt is whether the QM cluster of servers MQ1 and MQ2, will connect via sender and receiver channels with the QM cluster of servidore broker1 and Broker2.
I read about the connectivity between QM clusters, however, would like to know what the best practice for this scenario 4 servers, with 2 MQ and 2 Brokers.
Thinking of a scenario where I have 10 rows in each MQ1 and MQ2 server, shared in a cluster (CLUSTERMQ), they would load balance. And doing the same scenario to broker1 and BROKER2 servers, sharing in a cluster (CLUSTERBRK). How can I make this connectivity in an ideal manner? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JosephGramig |
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1244
Location: Gold Coast of Florida, USA
|
Hard to follow you.
First, it does not make sense to create an MQ cluster of just two nodes. What would cluster inbound traffic? Sure a client can connect to one Qmgr and load balance with the other, but does that really make sense?
So, normally you would have other Qmgrs in the MQ cluster and those load balance to the Broker Qmgrs (which I would assume you have exactly the same services deployed). This would allow you to be able to suspend one Broker Qmgr from the cluster to perform some kind of maintenance without an outage of service. The other point of why you did this is now you can just add more brokers like these two to scale up for capacity.
It is a good idea to isolate your Full Repository Qmgrs (aka do nothing else but be FRs). Fine to put them on machines that host other Qmgrs. This will reduce your temptation to mess with the FRs like suspend them or worse. If your FRs are only FRs, then they don't need to be HA by definition (think about it).
Note that the Brokers are not clustered in any sense. The Qmgrs under the brokers are MQ clustered and communicate via clussdr/clusrcvr channels. Keep this in mind because if one of your brokers is not running but the Qmgr under it is, it will get traffic that will not get serviced. If you are doing any web traffic, you will want to load balance that to the brokers just like you would WAS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| telesguilherme |
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 56
|
JosephGramig,
Thanks, thanks a lot, and again i´m sorry, about too many questions. I´m just getting where i want.
Understand the concept. But if I adopt the strategy of using only one cluster for 4 servers, MQ1, MQ2, broker1, and BROKER2 QM, being only considered MQ1 and MQ2 Full Repository (FR), how can I configure a Gateway QM and make management a Virtual IP input for external connections?
I thought about using the Edge Component WAS 8.5.5, but from what I read it can only make the entry of HTTP traffic. And I have the Queues, HTTPS, and JMS. Defining it, I can set my topology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Look at having an MI qmgr acting as gateway into the cluster and if you absolutely need to front it to the outside using MQIPT (support pack MS81 ?)
Have fun 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JosephGramig |
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1244
Location: Gold Coast of Florida, USA
|
| telesguilherme wrote: |
| ...My customer will buy the HA add-on for Red Hat, but for now i will create Queue Manager Clusters... |
So, I would assume you are going to do a traditional HA Qmgr and not an MI Qmgr. The main differences being the HA software will stop and start the MQ instances and swing over the VIP. MI does not use a VIP and will notify clients that the server has failed over (or the clients will figure it out if they are at an MI version).
From what you just said, you are now going to introduce a fifth Qmgr to be the "Gataway" Qmgr (but any Qmgr in the cluster that does not host the cluster queue is a "Gataway" Qmgr). You know, if you always build your Qmgrs as if they are going to be HA/MI even if they are not, it makes it no big deal to implement them that way after the fact. What I mean is always separate the data and log directories from everything else (crtmqm -md /Qmgr/Data -ld /Qmgr/log ...).
For HA Qmgrs, always lock/bind your listener to the VIP to force connections to the VIP and you may want outbound done the same way for firewall rule issues.
Using traditional HA software that manages VIPs should solve HTTP and JMS traffic issues as well so long as everybody uses the VIP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| telesguilherme |
| Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 56
|
Dear all experts that are helping me,
Thanks, i´m really close of the understanding.
My topology can be to do one queue manager cluster, with my 4 servers, and the servers MQ1 and MQ2 beeing the FR. And servers BROKER1 and BROKER2, beeing PR.
I can have two other WAS servers with MS81: WebSphere MQ Internet Pass-Thru, and then i will have the management of virtual IP Address (provided by Edge component).
This will be the best topology while my client purchases the Red Hat HA, right ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JosephGramig |
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2014 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1244
Location: Gold Coast of Florida, USA
|
| I have not used MS81, so I will leave it to others to comment... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
