| Author |
Message
|
| nani430 |
 Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 1:09 am Post subject: MQ server with High Availability on virtual machine |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Oct 2014
Posts: 7
|
We are planning to setup a MQ server with High Availability on virtual machine for disaster recovery site so can u please tell me the HA possibilities on MQ
ASAP |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| PaulClarke |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: New Zealand
|
There are lots of possibilities but you are more likely to get a meaning full response if you are specific about your question. In your message you are mixing terms. Are you interested in HA or DR...they are quite different. If you are interested in HA then what concerns you most, HA of the service or HA of an individual message?
Cheers,
Paul.
_________________
Paul Clarke
MQGem Software
www.mqgem.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| nani430 |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Oct 2014
Posts: 7
|
Thank you Paul
Can you please tel me the high level activities required for setting up HA for MQ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
The InfoCentre has a log of information about the sort of thing you want to do.
Please take the time to read the IBM documentation and come back to us if you have specific questions.
I run a Windows Server 2008/2012 Cluster including a Domain controller in VMWare on my dev system. There is a lot to setup (and get wrong) but if you take your time and importantly document everything then it soon becomes second nature. Don't expect to get it right first time.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| nani430 |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Oct 2014
Posts: 7
|
Thank you for reply
my manger asked me to prepare Doc for high level activities required for setting up with High Availability for MQ.
we are using Mq v6.0.2.8.
Acually we have 3Application there already and Now 29 new Application's are added. can u please tel me what should I do for further step? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| nani430 wrote: |
Thank you for reply
my manger asked me to prepare Doc for high level activities required for setting up with High Availability for MQ.
we are using Mq v6.0.2.8.
Acually we have 3Application there already and Now 29 new Application's are added. can u please tel me what should I do for further step? |
Explain to your boss that MQ v6 at any level is completely out of support.
Explain that any HA planning starts by building an entirely new MQ infrastructure based on MQ v7.5 or MQ v8, both of which are supported and will be for a reasonable amount of time.
Otherwise, again, all of the high level steps you need are actually listed in the documentation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| nani430 |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Oct 2014
Posts: 7
|
Thank you for all
i am newly joind one project they are using MQJ Explorer. if any differenc between MQ Explorer and MQJ Explorer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| nani430 wrote: |
Thank you for all
i am newly joind one project they are using MQJ Explorer. if any differenc between MQ Explorer and MQJ Explorer |
When you searched google for MQJ Explorer, what did you discover? When you searched google for MQ Explorer, what did you discover?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Absolutely forget MQ v6.
Next decide if you want MQ software HA (known as a multi-instance QM) or OS "hardware" HA (this varies according to the platform).
In your case I would suggest Multi-instance might be the way to go - but the solution for a DR site is really no different from the solution for the main production site.
You don't want to mix HA designs between prod and DR. What is your current prod HA design?
If you don't have HA currently in prod - are you trying to use a live DR site to increase availability?
That can be hard to do unless you are able to share the same storage (e.g. NFS) over the two sites.
HA is not simple and you should employ an experienced person for this.
Multi-instance comes with the enormous disadvantage that the QM will have a different IP address after failover.
Traditional HA (MSCS, or HA/CMP) fails over the IP address as well.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| zpat wrote: |
| ...Multi-instance comes with the enormous disadvantage that the QM will have a different IP address after failover... |
Why is this an 'enormous disadvantage'? Unless all your MQ estate is not capable of handling MI queue managers...
_________________
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 |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Because 90% of our apps don't use a CCDT, nor would they accept a list of IP addresses for the QM.
They also can't be modified as they are either vendor supplied or the application team have other priorities.
Since we have HA/CMP working there is not really a chance to use MI as it does less 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 |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| zpat wrote: |
Because 90% of our apps don't use a CCDT, nor would they accept a list of IP addresses for the QM.
They also can't be modified as they are either vendor supplied or the application team have other priorities.
Since we have HA/CMP working there is not really a chance to use MI as it does less for us. |
Fairy snuff - just wanted an explanation so that anyone looking at this thread would have a justification for the statement, thank you.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
