| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| MQ Expiry Value - How is this possible? |
View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message
|
| PeterPotkay |
 Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
Tim, the systems I discovered the problem on were all 7.0.1.*.
I wonder how long the ability to use an Expiry value > 999,999,999 has been there.
I do know the documented max value to use of 999,999,999 has been documented as such as long as I've been dealing with MQ (15 years).
I wonder how QM to QM channels are going to react to this when a message arrives from an older QM that did allow > 999,999,999. My PMR is still open, I learned of this APAR not from the PMR but from the weekly update email I get from IBM. I will ask the PMR how QM channels are going to treat a message that arrives with a value > 999,999,999.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Peter, you make a good point.
I have thought about the sort of Expiry times that I've been seeing over the years.
Apart from setting Unlimited the longest expiry time I have ever set on a message was 1 week. Most are less than a day.
Naturally some environments anything but unlimited is totally forbidden. In others where the data is very transient and another similar message will be along in a few seconds, the expiry can be a few minutes.
I wonder if other readers might like to share their experiences with long expiry times we might get a flavour of what effect the 999,999,999 limit might have.
Your point about the behaviour over a channel is very good. It might be worth IBM publishing a matrix that shows the interconnection Yes/No for the various versions and fixPacks.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| tczielke |
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 941
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Tim, the systems I discovered the problem on were all 7.0.1.*. |
Was the application that PUT the expiry > 999,999,999 also using 7.0.1?
I am reading between the lines a little bit, but based on the APAR, it sounds like this behavior of allowing an application to PUT an expiry > 999,999,999 was introduced into the distributed platform at 7.5. The environment variable workaround caught my eye, as that would not work for z/OS, so I am thinking z/OS is not impacted, at all.
I still have some distributed 7.0.1 queue managers, so I will test it out on Monday if I can PUT on a 7.0.1 queue manager with an expiry > 999,999,999. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tczielke |
| Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 941
Location: Illinois, USA
|
Hi Peter,
I did a test on a 7.0.1.11 Solaris SPARC queue manager, and I was able to PUT a message successfully with an Expiry > 999,999,999. On z/OS 7.1, doing a PUT of a message with an Expirty > 999,999,999 results in a 2013 error. So like you said, not sure how back this behavior goes for distributed (at least 7.0.1, based on my tests).
Regards,
Tim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
The APAR was initially published with the language reversed. It has been corrected. The default behavior will remain the “wrong” way that has allowed an Expiry value > than published maximum value for backwards compatibility. If the MQ Admin wants to enforce the max value to match the documented max value they will need to set the new Env variable. I guess that is the best that can done without risking blowing up legacy apps that have been exploiting this bug for who knows how many years.
I will push in my PMR that any place in the Knowledge Center that mentions 999,999,999 and Expiry also mention this new Env variable.
For MQ geeks and propeller heads a complete list of all these special Env variables, what they do and how they came to be would be an interesting doc.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
