| Author |
Message
|
| bruce2359 |
 Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2015 3:47 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9472
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
[quote="gbaddeley"]
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| rammer wrote: |
| ... Are there really only 560 objects that need to be recreated? Or are there 561 and for some reason the dmpmqcfg output was truncated. ... |
If you are concerned about all objects being dumped, you would need to keep a history of past successful dumps and do a delta every time it runs. |
What and how many are all objects?
I seem to recall a 3rd-party offering that produces an inventory of objects - a count by category.
_________________
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: Fri Nov 13, 2015 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| So you still have to know what you are expecting to get in order to tell if your output is complete. Much less if it's correct. |
If I had something to compare to that was the authoritative source of what I should expect to see in the dmpmqcfg output, and I could do that validation in an automated scripted manner, I might ask myself, Why am I even bothering with dmpmqcfg? I'll just use my authoritative source to reconstruct the queue manager. |
Well, if you don't even know how many objects you are supposed to have, what use is having even a count of objects - much less by type?
Are you adding objects to your queue managers by hand?
Lacking that authoritative source, can't you simply decide that the first dmpmqcfg is the accurate one, and go from there? Aside from an initial manual review to make sure you have only what you should?
And dmpmqcfg/saveqmgr has always been good for comparing the expected state of a qmgr with the actual state.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9472
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
Lacking that authoritative source, can't you simply decide that the first dmpmqcfg is the accurate one, and go from there? |
Allow me to disagree.
When a qmgr is first created, there is a message that states how many objects were created. So, if the first dmpmqcfg immediately follows qmgr creation, there is an accurate backup - one should assume - the number (and type) of objects and their attribute values should be identical.
If a new app implements ten new objects, then the next dmpmqcfg should contain those initially created by IMQ, plus the ten new user-created objects.
I will agree that the number of objects as a single metric has only marginal value. The same could be said of the number of paychecks in a payroll app.
An audit-able system needs a variety of metrics. For IMQ-based apps, at a minimum, the sysadmin should be able to provide a simple count of objects by app and type. There should be a change-request or incident-report to justify any discrepancy.
I accept that the IBM-supplied utilities and samples are bare-bones, functional, and not pretty.
I seem to recall a 3rd-party tool ...
_________________
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.
Last edited by bruce2359 on Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tczielke |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 941
Location: Illinois, USA
|
On Unix, if you do something like the following in a script, you can probably report on most of the errors that dmpmqcfg encountered:
| Code: |
dmpmqcfg -m qmgr -a 1> qmgr.MQSC 2> qmgr.ERR
if [ $(cat qmgr.MQSC|wc -l) = 0 ] || [ $(cat qmgr.ERR|wc -l) != 0 ]; then
# report error here
fi
|
For most error conditions that I have run across in dmpmqcfg, the tool did report it to standard error. For other error conditions that I have found where nothing was written to standard error, nothing was also written to standard out. This approach is definitely not perfect or what an administrator should be required to do to detect errors in the IBM supplied qmgr back up tool, but it should at least help with some error detection for something critical like queue manager back ups.
_________________
Working with MQ since 2010. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I agree on all of the complaints and concerns about the error behavior of dmpmqcfg.
I hope someone has opened a PMR. This sounds very much like a defect to me.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tczielke |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 941
Location: Illinois, USA
|
I have opened a PMR. Initially, I am hearing "working as designed", but hopefuly that changes.
_________________
Working with MQ since 2010. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| tczielke wrote: |
| I have opened a PMR. Initially, I am hearing "working as designed", but hopefuly that changes. |
I'm really not sure how "bad error reporting" is a design feature.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tczielke |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 941
Location: Illinois, USA
|
That is the beauty of standing behind the deflector screen of "working as designed". Your design can be flawed, but as long as you built it according to specifications, it is "working as designed"! 
_________________
Working with MQ since 2010. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| tczielke wrote: |
| I have opened a PMR. Initially, I am hearing "working as designed", but hopefuly that changes. |
Not surprised in the least that this was the response. Where does it say in the documentation that error handling is a feature of dmpmqcfg? 
It was the same response I got when I opened a PMR a couple of years ago when dmpmqcfg came out and we found it didn't capture 100% of the configuration the way MS03 did. "Working as designed". There is a long thread here on on the MQ list serve on that topic. I ended up opening the RFE and the problem got fixed eventually, whether by the PMR or RFE.
The one-two punch of the PMR(Tim) and the RFE(me) will hopefully get this fixed one way or the other.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tczielke |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 08 Jul 2010
Posts: 941
Location: Illinois, USA
|
MS03 (saveqmgr) does appear to have the logic to set the return code to non-zero when it encounters errors. Also, I would assume dmpmqcfg was based on MS03. dmpmqcfg at least looks a lot like saveqmgr. Not sure if/how that error reporting functionality was lost in dmpmqcfg, but I do hope it gets added back in soon.
_________________
Working with MQ since 2010. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9472
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Where does it say in the documentation that error handling is a feature of dmpmqcfg? . |
Huh? Error handling is a feature?
_________________
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: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Where does it say in the documentation that error handling is a feature of dmpmqcfg? . |
Huh? Error handling is a feature? |
Ha!
Welcome to the modern age of programming....sigh.
I remember review meetings being held in the '90s to review one new IF statement in a COBOL program. Being approved to move to QA was a major, major milestone.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| Where does it say in the documentation that error handling is a feature of dmpmqcfg? . |
Huh? Error handling is a feature? |
Ha!
Welcome to the modern age of programming....sigh.
I remember review meetings being held in the '90s to review one new IF statement in a COBOL program. Being approved to move to QA was a major, major milestone. |
It's all Agile these days. Which seems to be code for "doing it faster is better than doing it right".
Which in fairness has more to do with how certain management types chose to interpret and implement Agile than the methodology itself.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Fri Nov 13, 2015 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| Vitor wrote: |
It's all Agile these days. Which seems to be code for "doing it faster is better than doing it right".
|
Too true. Some of us call it Fragile. Some Scrum Masters have a real aversion to spikes. As a result a fix that should take 1-2 hours to code and test (cont integration right!) takes at least a two sprints to even get it scheduled.
Agile? Hardly.
_________________
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 Nov 16, 2015 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| tczielke wrote: |
| Also, I would assume dmpmqcfg was based on MS03. |
No. Pretty sure not.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
