| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Validating a cluster config. |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| aboggis |
 Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:39 am Post subject: Validating a cluster config. |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 105
Location: Auburn, California
|
Here's my cluster scenario:
| Code: |
+------+ +------+
| | CLUSRCVR CLUSRCVR | |
| QMA1 |<-TO.QMA1 TO.QMA2->| QMA2 |
| FR | | |
| |<------+ +---------| |
+------+ | |CLUSSDR +------+
^ | | |TO.QMB1
CLUSSDR| |CLUSSDR | |
TO.QMA1| |TO.QMB1 +--------------+
| | | CLUSSDR |
| V +------+ TO.QMA1 |
+------+ | +------+
| |<--+ | |
| QMB1 | CLUSRCVR | QMB2 |
| FR |CLUSRCVR TO.QMB2->| |
| |<-TO.QMB1 | |
+------+ +------+
^
| ...<--------------+
CLUSSDR| CLUSSDR|
TO.QMB1| TO.QMA1|
+------+ +------+
| | CLUSRCVR | |
| QMB1C| CLUSRCVR TO.QMB2C->| QMB2C|
| |<-TO.QMB1C | |
| | | |
+------+ +------+
|
Six queue managers.
One cluster.
Two full repositories.
QMA1 (FR = Full Repository)
CLUSSDR: TO.QMB1
CLUSRCVR: TO.QMA1
QMB1 (FR = Full Repository)
CLUSSDR: TO.QMA1
CLUSRCVR: TO.QMB1
QMA2
CLUSSDR: TO.QMB1
CLUSRCVR: TO.QMA2
QMB2
CLUSSDR: TO.QMA1
CLUSRCVR: TO.QMB2
QMB1C
CLUSSDR: TO.QMB1
CLUSRCVR: TO.QMB1C
QMB2C
CLUSSDR: TO.QMA1
CLUSRCVR: TO.QMB2C
QMA1 & QMA2 each run on their own box.
QMB1 & QMB1C share a box, listening on different ports.
QMB2 & QMB2C share a box, listening on different ports.
I am confusing myself and not sure if I have the right cluster sender/receiver pairs defined. All six queue managers and members of the same cluster, with QMA1 & QMB1 defined as full repositories.
Will the queue managers function correctly if QMA1, QMB1 & QMB1C are offline, given that QMA1 & QMB1 are the only full repositories? For syetem testing, there are times when we wish to bring down QMA1, QMB1 & QMB1C. Since this is where the respositories are hosted will this effect the remaining qmgrs? Or should I make it so that QMA1 & QMA2 are full repositories?
I have a cluster workload exit installed ensuring that messages are not sent to a cluster member that is not running.
Comments welcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| EddieA |
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 2453
Location: Los Angeles
|
Tony,
Yes, you've got the right channels defined. MQ will automagically define any others needed.
If both the repositories are offline at the same time, the cluster will continue to operate normally, as long as you don't define any new objects in one of the partial repositories and expect to use it in one of the other partials before one of the full repositories comes back on line. Or reference an object for the first time from a partial.
There's no need to write a workload exit for what you've described. MQ itself will take care of not sending messages to queue managers that aren't available.
Cheers,
_________________
Eddie Atherton
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| aboggis |
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 105
Location: Auburn, California
|
| Quote: |
| There's no need to write a workload exit for what you've described. MQ itself will take care of not sending messages to queue managers that aren't available. |
BUT... if there are messages for a cluster queue that is hosted on one of the unavailable queue managers, isn't the message still put on the cluster xmit queue for delivery when the queue manager becomes available?
BTW, Eddie... been in any "high places" recently  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EddieA |
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 2453
Location: Los Angeles
|
The descision as to which Queue Manager to send the message to is made at the time the message is put to the XMIT queue. If the queue is ONLY hosted on a queue manager(s) that is (are) unavailable, then yes, it will be put to the queue waiting for one of the queue manager(s) to become avaialable again. But MQ decides which queue manager at this point. If there were 2 and both unavailable, MQ could make a 'wrong guess' as to which will become available first. Is that what you were trying to pre-empt in your exit, or were you planning on changing the destination Queue in your exit (if that's possible), in which case, yes, you would need your own.
If the queue exists on multiple queue managers, and at least one queue manager is available, then the messages will be routed to ONLY the available queue manager(s).
Chapter 11 of the Cluster manual begins with a breakdown of how the 'built-in' algorithm works.
Once a message is on the XMIT queue, it cannot be re-routed to another queue manager without some 'application' reading the message and re-sending it.
As to the last question: Not recently, but I do get the occaisional hankerings to get my 'knees in the breeze'. So, it could be a possibility. 
_________________
Eddie Atherton
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ratan |
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
I think you also need to consider BIND: ON OPEN and BIND: NOT_FIXED here. If you set 'Bind on open' then the messages will be put to the unavailable QM as well as the available QM, which means if 2 qms are hosting the q, every alternate message is left on the xmit queue to the unavialable QM. With Bind not fixed messages are only put to the avialable QMs.
_________________
-Ratan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| aboggis |
| Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 105
Location: Auburn, California
|
| Good point. For that very reason all of our cluster queues are defined with DEFBIND(NOTFIXED). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7717
|
| Quote: |
If you set 'Bind on open' then the messages will be put to the unavailable QM as well as the available QM, which means if 2 qms are hosting the q, every alternate message is left on the xmit queue to the unavialable QM.
|
I do not agree.
Whether the bind on open option is set or not, MQ will not send a message to a QM that is N/A.
If you issue an MQOPEN, MQ looks for an available QM. If one of the 2 is not up, you bind to the one that is up. And for the duration of that connection to that queue, all subsequent puts will go to that one queue on the live QM. MQ will not send every other one to the down QM.
If you have 3 QMs in your cluster all hosting the queue (QM1 is down, QM2 and QM3 are up), and you issue an MQOPEN with BIND, MQ will bind ALL your messages for that queue connection to either QM2 or QM3. It will never choose QM1. If you choose not fixed in this scenario, MQ would round robin the message between QM2 and QM3, again ignoring QM1 (until it came up anyway).
If you issue an MQOPEN to a BIND_ON_OPEN queue, and MQ happens to bind you to QM1, which is up, all messages go to QM1 for the duration of that connection. If QM1 goes down in the middle of this connection, all the message will stack up in the cluster XMIT queue until the QM comes back.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
