| Author |
Message
|
| wmbv7newbie |
 Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:56 pm Post subject: Load Balanced/ Highly Available MQs |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 121
|
Hi,
We are exploring some solutions to make our mqs highly available/load balanced. For example, we might have QUEUE1 defined on all of our servers. When we send a message, we don't want to say "put the message on QUEUE1 on QM1" as this wouldn't be highly available - it will fail if QM1 is down. Instead we just want to be able to say "put the message on QUEUE1 wherever you find it". This would then allow us to configure our load balancer so that it sends requests in a round-robin fashion to all active queue managers.
I found this link giving a good solution for this -
| Quote: |
| http://zef.me/blog/4502/message-queue-based-load-balancing |
Any other ideas/alternatives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
Queue manager clustering provides load balancing but does not provide queue manager high-availability.
Multi-Instance queue managers, or the various methods of hardware clustering, e.g. VCS, provide high-availability.
Combine the two.
What you don't make clear is whether your apps are MQ Client-based - in which case you can connect them to queue manager "groups" (note the quote marks) - or MQ Server-based.
_________________
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: Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
| exerk wrote: |
| in which case you can connect them to queue manager "groups" (note the quote marks) - or MQ Server-based. |
I believe QM "groups" only work for apps that use a CCDT to connect?
_________________
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: Thu Apr 14, 2016 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| zpat wrote: |
| exerk wrote: |
| in which case you can connect them to queue manager "groups" (note the quote marks) - or MQ Server-based. |
I believe QM "groups" only work for apps that use a CCDT to connect? |
It can be done without a CCDT but makes it an application-intensive operation...
_________________
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: Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| exerk wrote: |
| It can be done without a CCDT but makes it an application-intensive operation... |
And misses the point of a CCDT, since the app team will probably write their own configuration file to hold operational details anyway.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| exerk wrote: |
| It can be done without a CCDT but makes it an application-intensive operation... |
And misses the point of a CCDT, since the app team will probably write their own configuration file to hold operational details anyway. |
I wasn't advocating it as a solution - my preference is always to use a CCDT as it makes management and fault-diagnosis so much simpler.
_________________
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: Thu Apr 14, 2016 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| exerk wrote: |
| I wasn't advocating it as a solution - my preference is always to use a CCDT as it makes management and fault-diagnosis so much simpler. |
I know. I was just adding additional boots to your stomping... 
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| exerk wrote: |
| I wasn't advocating it as a solution - my preference is always to use a CCDT as it makes management and fault-diagnosis so much simpler. |
I know. I was just adding additional boots to your stomping... |
Always appreciated 
_________________
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 |
|
|
| wmbv7newbie |
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 121
|
| Thanks for the suggestion but all apps are mq server based |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2016 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| wmbv7newbie wrote: |
| Thanks for the suggestion but all apps are mq server based |
Queue manager clustering then, plus HA as suggested...
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqprimerib |
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 30 Mar 2016
Posts: 36
Location: Detroit Rock City
|
| I'm working on the same thing. I've been asked to look into a HA solution for MQ.. So far my recommendation is to move to a multi-instance solution rather than HA clustering. There are pros/cons to either choice so YMMV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
