| Author |
Message
|
| pintrader |
 Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:54 am Post subject: Running broker as a service to MQ |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 22 Jan 2014
Posts: 164
|
hi
in the doc on broker creation, there is a switch -d [defined|undefined] which we can use as alternative to starting a multi-instance broker.
If I have a MSCS cluster, then this switch -d would probably come in handy because then i would not need to create a MSCS resource. The MQ service would start the broker as the Qmgr starts and stops. My question is, if i were to use this switch in production are there any possible issues versus if I were to create a separate MSCS resource for the broker? What pros and cons ?
One of the cons i can think of is I will not be able to see if the broker is down at the Failover cluster manager interface.
thanks
Last edited by pintrader on Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| zpat |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5849
Location: UK
|
I started to investigate this - only to find the broker started under the mqm id.
At which point I stopped looking at this feature.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| pintrader |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 22 Jan 2014
Posts: 164
|
| zpat wrote: |
I started to investigate this - only to find the broker started under the mqm id.
At which point I stopped looking at this feature. |
hi i am running on windows which I don't see a mqm user. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
You do not need to run broker as a WMQ Service. you run is as defined resource (in MSCS Cluster terms, a 'generic service'). This will have its own resource manager. You can also setup its depencencies correctly doing it this way.
For example, in one configuration we have a tool called NetDecision (SNMP) setup as a dependency of Broker. This is because it sends messages to broker using HTTP. If broker is not running then it can't do its job.
I am sure there is a valid use case somewhere for running broker as a WMQ service. I have yet to come upon it.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5849
Location: UK
|
The reason it would be useful if using MI without HA/CMP (or MSCS), or even to simply the HA set up if using these.
But it would need to run under a specific broker id for it to be workable for us.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| pintrader |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 22 Jan 2014
Posts: 164
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
For example, in one configuration we have a tool called NetDecision (SNMP) setup as a dependency of Broker. This is because it sends messages to broker using HTTP. If broker is not running then it can't do its job.
|
thanks for reply. in this case, why wouldn't the broker be running? as it should already been started by the WMQ service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20696
Location: LI,NY
|
Why do I get the feeling that you're just going to try a few other tricks to get out of defining the broker with the -B switch?
It won't work!. Bite the dust already and define your broker with the -B switch! If you get lip from your AD admin, show them the doc that says you need a domain group there... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pintrader |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 22 Jan 2014
Posts: 164
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
Why do I get the feeling that you're just going to try a few other tricks to get out of defining the broker with the -B switch?
It won't work!. Bite the dust already and define your broker with the -B switch! If you get lip from your AD admin, show them the doc that says you need a domain group there... :innocent: |
well as i already said before, I have tested the setup on my own VMs and I don't have to use the -B switch. Also, the problem happens whenever the mqsiaddbrokerinstance is used. I have verified that as I performed this command on both nodes.
1) node A using mqsicreatebroker (service starts)
2) node B using mqsiaddbrokerinstance ( service doesn't start)
then i switch
1) node A using mqsiaddbrokerinstance (service doesn't start)
2) node B using mqsicreatebroker (service starts)
the -B option is just to secure the files in the shared work path, as documented:
"Use this parameter to set the Windows Domain Group that is used to secure files in the sharedWorkPath of a multi-instance broker"
If this Windows Domain Group is only recognized by websphere, then I guess including this -B is inevitable. However i think its just a windows group where you can assign members into it. Does it matter if I just assign the user directly to the files and folders in the shared work path? my guess is, it doesn't matter. I have tried assigning my service account to have RWX permissions to the root of the shared drive . It still doesn't work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20696
Location: LI,NY
|
On the contrary it does matter!
When you create the broker without the -B switch the permissions are assigned to the local mqbrkrs group at the gid level. This is a complete different gid from mqbrkrs group on the second machine...
When trying to start the broker on the second machine the start will fail. The trace / start trace may give you an indication that the problem is a permission / access problem... should also be recorded somewhere in the windows logs.
Thus assign the -B domaingrp and see that your start up problem should be solved...
Oh ye of poor faith...
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pintrader |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 22 Jan 2014
Posts: 164
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
On the contrary it does matter!
When you create the broker without the -B switch the permissions are assigned to the local mqbrkrs group at the gid level. This is a complete different gid from mqbrkrs group on the second machine... |
thanks, please see this:
1) node A using mqsicreatebroker (service starts)
2) node B using mqsiaddbrokerinstance ( service doesn't start)
then i switch
1) node A using mqsiaddbrokerinstance (service doesn't start)
2) node B using mqsicreatebroker (service starts)
If what you said is true, that they are of different gid , then can you explain why whenever mqsicreatebroker is used, on both Nodes, it works? by right, if what you said is true, then Node B would not have started at all, no matter which command i use? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20696
Location: LI,NY
|
| pintrader wrote: |
thanks, please see this:
1) node A using mqsicreatebroker (service starts)
2) node B using mqsiaddbrokerinstance ( service doesn't start)
then i switch
1) node A using mqsiaddbrokerinstance (service doesn't start)
2) node B using mqsicreatebroker (service starts)
If what you said is true, that they are of different gid , then can you explain why whenever mqsicreatebroker is used, on both Nodes, it works? by right, if what you said is true, then Node B would not have started at all, no matter which command i use? |
Because despite your beliefs mqsicreatebroker and mqsiaddbrokerinstance do not behave the same in regards to group permissions needed /used when not specifying the -B flag...
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
I give up, no matter what advice we give, it seems to be ignored.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| pintrader |
| Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2014 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 22 Jan 2014
Posts: 164
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
I give up, no matter what advice we give, it seems to be ignored.
:surrender: :surrender: :surrender: |
i appreciate the advise given you can sure about that.. Just cannot fathom peculiarities such as why make it a distinction for createbroker and addinstance to have different behaviours. I would try the -B as advised and then i will update if it works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
