| Author |
Message
|
| OzgurAydin |
 Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 5:04 am Post subject: Cluster Solution for MQ ! |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Posts: 27
|
Hi,
I was wondering if there is a possibilty of having a HA Cluster of Queue Managers within the VMWare world ? I want to be redundant not only with the operating system itself but also with the Queue Managers and the messages ? The solutions that we were advised to were more like a possiblity to have the OS system up and running all the time. I want to be able to have at least two identical queue managers for handling messages.
First solution was MultiInstance Queue Manager. SPOF here is that the Storage is only one Storage, shared.
Second solution was HA Cluster on Windows or AIX Operating System Cluster (Active/Passive)
Here we still have the SPOF of one Storage for one cluster ?
Can you give any other solution for HA Queue Manager Clusters ? Thank you. We want to run a critical system on MQ Clusters.
Best regards. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:24 am Post subject: Re: Cluster Solution for MQ ! |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| OzgurAydin wrote: |
Hi,
I was wondering if there is a possibilty of having a HA Cluster of Queue Managers within the VMWare world ? |
Yes.
Search for 'mq+hypervisor edition' on Google.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
If you want to preserve messages and the state of the queue manager, you need to have shared disc.
If you merely want rapid restoration of a queue manager - without regard to it's point in time state - you can use something like a VM image (or a docker image, or etc...) that you can create a new VM from in a very small time.
If you want automatic HA failover, both OS images have to be running.
MQ has two kinds of clustering. HA clustering which can either be MI or more traditional HA, and MQ Clustering - which is *not* HA.
HA/MI means that you have one queue manager, that survives the failure of a single machine.
If you want more than one queue manager, and you want them to load balance messages and provide application redundancy and some failure protection, then you need to use MQ clustering. Which can be used in addition to HA.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| If you want to preserve messages and the state of the queue manager, you need to have shared disc. |
Talk to your IBM Rep. I believe the MQ-Appliance HA model is a little bit different. 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| If you want to preserve messages and the state of the queue manager, you need to have shared disc. |
Talk to your IBM Rep. I believe the MQ-Appliance HA model is a little bit different. |
the MQ appliance is basically a Datapower box with embedded MQ. It can participate in an MQ Cluster and a form of HA.
I consider it rather over priced. Reperesentations to IBM have been made on the subject of releasing a low power (and low cost) version. The jury is out on if anythying will happen.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I can't comment on cost.
But to call it a Datapower machine is really not correct. It's an MQ machine that happens to run on Datapower hardware.
There's absolutely no Datapower software running on it. And it's not even necessarily strictly Datapower hardware, because the configuration may differ from any shipping Datapower machine.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| Reperesentations to IBM have been made on the subject of releasing a low power (and low cost) version. |
Other than the 2 versions already available?
I also think "a form of HA" is slightly disingenuous. Unless I've misread something (and I'd be delighted to discover this), 2 appliances automagically become active/passive for each other. Which sounds like HA to me.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| Reperesentations to IBM have been made on the subject of releasing a low power (and low cost) version. |
Other than the 2 versions already available?
I also think "a form of HA" is slightly disingenuous. Unless I've misread something (and I'd be delighted to discover this), 2 appliances automagically become active/passive for each other. Which sounds like HA to me. |
Yes. At the Hursley Users Group Meeting in July the session on MQ Appliance a good proportion of the audience supported my view that a lower power (and lower cost) entry level box would be ideal. The ease of installation and configuration would make it ideal for some of out more remote sites. However the current licensing cost is far too high.
Something like a branch installation. Easy to install and manage remotely but not a huge throughput needed.
Using the basic Datapower Hardware (this came from the guys at Hursley so I have no reason to doubt their explanation) the PVU rating is pretty high. This means corresponding high MQ Licensing costs.
Something that would replace a pair of dual core XEON E2609 Serverss in an Active/Passive config would be perfect for us. All that remains if for IBM to deliver (And pigs might fly) 
_________________
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 |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| smdavies99 wrote: |
| ...Something that would replace a pair of dual core XEON E2609 Serverss in an Active/Passive config would be perfect for us. All that remains if for IBM to deliver (And pigs might fly) |
And while they're at it, releasing limited VMs for evaluation would be nice - but that would mean a second squadron of bacon ready and fit to fly!
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Not sure the point of releasing limited VMs, when you can get trial/dev versions of MQ and put them on your own VMs.
Likewise, one could put docker on those dual core XEON E2609 Servers and do all your configuration in a central location and roll out new containers when you need to update.
But that doesn't give you many of the advantages of the appliance - the physical security, the webui, the...
As always, if you want IBM to do something, talk to your Sales Rep...
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| Not sure the point of releasing limited VMs, when you can get trial/dev versions of MQ and put them on your own VMs... |
But not of the appliances - I asked and was given a firm no.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| exerk wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| Not sure the point of releasing limited VMs, when you can get trial/dev versions of MQ and put them on your own VMs... |
But not of the appliances - I asked and was given a firm no. |
Which is a shame because the way you setup and manage Applicance configs is different to how we normally do it. Being able to properly evaluate it before purchase would be good (as well as to see how MQ Admin will be in the future ...?) and to see how it would fit into the current admin processes and procedures.
_________________
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: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
You can also use disk replication like SRDF.
We use both HA/CMP and SRDF to provide fault tolerance at host, cluster, storage and site level, with zero loss of messages.
_________________
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: Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I'd suggest you talk to your IBM sales rep or product rep about future directions for MQAppliance features. I'm sure I couldn't comment directly on what may happen with the webui.
Nor comment on any inferences made based on the above statements.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
