| Author |
Message
|
| infotainment |
 Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:09 am Post subject: IBM Integration Bus and MQ Cluster related Query |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 41
|
We are developing ESB for an Organization and we were planning to use IBM Integration Bus V10 --> Multi Instance Failover Option for Failover Cluster Setup.
We suggested Organization that we will be setting up IBM Integration Bus and MQ on the same server (Active Node) and there will be Passive Node with Same Setup.
Organization has already an MQ Cluster running there and they are asking to use existing MQ Cluster for MQ Queues Purposes rather than installing a new one.
We want to know that what issues can come in the future if we do not:
- Use same server for IBM IIB and MQ
Also if we use already setup MQ Cluster to host our queues then can we use Multi Instance Failover or we would have to go to other option.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Be very clear on the distinction between the HA cluster provided by the multi-instance technology and the MQ cluster used to distribute messages between queue managers. Two different things meeting two different needs.
| infotainment wrote: |
| Organization has already an MQ Cluster running there and they are asking to use existing MQ Cluster for MQ Queues Purposes rather than installing a new one. |
This is not a problem.
| infotainment wrote: |
We want to know that what issues can come in the future if we do not:
- Use same server for IBM IIB and MQ |
One of the big changes in v10 is that you don't have to use the same server for IIB & MQ. This causes a change in the MQ topology as documented in the InfoCenter, and has the pros and cons documented in the InfoCenter. You pay your money, you take your choice.
| infotainment wrote: |
| Also if we use already setup MQ Cluster to host our queues then can we use Multi Instance Failover or we would have to go to other option |
There's no reason why a multi-instance queue manager can't participate in an MQ cluster. You just need to configure it appropriately (i.e. as documented).
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
There is documentation for creating an multi-instance queue manager.
There is documentation for creating a multi-instance broker on top of a multi-instance queue manager.
As my esteemed colleague says, IIB v10 has additional choices for talking to queue managers.
Each of those choices have different impacts on the functions of the IIB broker.
Those impacts are documented.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| infotainment |
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 41
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
That's true.
| Vitor wrote: |
| and has the pros and cons documented in the InfoCenter. You pay your money, you take your choice |
| mqjeff wrote: |
Each of those choices have different impacts on the functions of the IIB broker.
Those impacts are documented. |
That's why we said what we said.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| infotainment |
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Posts: 41
|
Yeah. Right.
Thanks for proactive reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
FWIW we're going to suck up the additional license costs and put queue managers under the v10 brokers to allow use of those nodes which require them.
I give it 2 years before we move them out and charge the business areas the queue manager license if they develop something that needs IIB to use a queue manager. I predict that this will cause developers to abandon those IIB nodes which require a queue manager.
I'm not saying it's all about the budget, but it's mostly about the budget. If you have fewer brokers than we do, that may not be an issue for you.
Irrespective of this I'm having the code review stage gate modified to ensure all MQ-aware flows use an approved MQ policy to client onto the "real" queue managers for all application traffic. That's because we use a lot of hub and spoke. This may not be true for you.
In the end, it's your site. The "right" answer is the one you end up choosing.
Just bear in mind that this is a process. IIB has gone from "needing a local queue manager" to "needing a local queue manager for some things". We can predict (though I am not now nor have I ever been any part of IBM's design or decision making team with respect to IIB) that the end of this journey is an IIB that doesn't need a queue manager for any internal function.
So the question may well become moot in time.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
