| Author |
Message
|
| saurabh25281 |
 Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:50 pm Post subject: Single Sender channel to multiple Receivers |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 108
Location: Bangalore
|
Hi MQExperts,
Is it possible to have a single Sender channel send messages to multiple receiver channels having same Queue Manager name on different servers.
e.g. If there are 3 QMgrs: A,B(server1),B(server2). QMgr A is the sender, QMgr B is the receiver on 2 different load-balanced servers.
Sender channel def @ QMgr A is A.B connection: Virtual IP(port)
Recevier channel def @ server1-QMgr B is A.B
Recevier channel def @ server2-QMgr B is A.B
Is this a valid scenario where QMgr A will be able to send data to a Load Balanced Server having QMgr B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| PaulClarke |
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 1002
Location: New Zealand
|
Firstly it is never a good idea to have two different Queue Manager given the same name,
Secondly a sender channel is not design to talk to more than one Queue Manager, certainly at the same time. You can 'serially' talk to different Queue Managers but it is not ideal - especially if the channel ends indoubt.
MQ can not do work-balancing with a single sender channel as you describe.
You might want to take a look at MQ Clustering. It is not workload balancing as such but it will round-robin around multiple Queue Managers from a single sender. You can therefore easily spread the work across multiple targets. You can also add exits to add some throttling if you really need it.
Cheers,
Paul.
_________________
Paul Clarke
MQGem Software
www.mqgem.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| saurabh25281 |
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 108
Location: Bangalore
|
| PaulClarke wrote: |
| Firstly it is never a good idea to have two different Queue Manager given the same name |
In our case QMgr A is the external source & having same name QMgrs allows the load-balancer to divert traffic to any server without making any difference in the RmtQ definition. Incase we have 2 different QMgrs traffic destined for 1 QMgr can be diverted to another QMgr since the load-balancer wont the able to distinguish the traffic.
| PaulClarke wrote: |
| Secondly a sender channel is not design to talk to more than one Queue Manager, certainly at the same time. You can 'serially' talk to different Queue Managers but it is not ideal - especially if the channel ends indoubt. |
Agreed, moreover I thought that there would be a sequence no. problem between the participating SNDR/RCVR channels.
| PaulClarke wrote: |
| MQ can not do work-balancing with a single sender channel as you describe. |
Load Balancer will be performing the workload balancing, not MQ.
| PaulClarke wrote: |
| You might want to take a look at MQ Clustering. It is not workload balancing as such but it will round-robin around multiple Queue Managers from a single sender. You can therefore easily spread the work across multiple targets. You can also add exits to add some throttling if you really need it. |
The DC where the receiver resides are 2 different DR site (which act as DR for each other) with minimal intercommunication between them except for disk replication, hence Clustering has been ruled out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
If one of the Queue Managers is external then AFAIK, there is no way to do your MQ Load Ballancing OOTB.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| saurabh25281 wrote: |
| Load Balancer will be performing the workload balancing, not MQ. |
You can't put a sender / receiver channel through a load balancer. The sequence numbering will go wrong the first time the load balancer switches the traffic.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| saurabh25281 wrote: |
| PaulClarke wrote: |
| Firstly it is never a good idea to have two different Queue Manager given the same name |
In our case QMgr A is the external source & having same name QMgrs allows the load-balancer to divert traffic to any server without making any difference in the RmtQ definition. Incase we have 2 different QMgrs traffic destined for 1 QMgr can be diverted to another QMgr since the load-balancer wont the able to distinguish the traffic.
|
Really bad design. A network load balancer should NEVER load balance qmgr to qmgr traffic.
A much better design would be a highly available gateway qmgr load balancing the traffic to the MQ Cluster it supports....
Have fun 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
To reiterate.
You can't use a regular network level load balancer between a sender and a receiver.
You should never have two qmgrs with the same name, twice as much never if they are expected to be part of a cluster.
If you want some kind of load balancing that is not related to MQ Clustering, you can use the the MQIPT and IBM Network Dispatcher to manage that, www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg24006386.
You might be able to use just IPT and a network level load balancer instead of IBM Network Dispatcher. But that's a PMR question... or a services engagement.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| saurabh25281 |
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 108
Location: Bangalore
|
Thanks everyone for bringing out the design flaws. A clear verdict that a MQ Cluster is more apt for such scenarios.
I am curious how the MQIPT & NLB combination can work when we have different QMgrs.
Src QMgr -> NLB -> 2 MQIPT -> (QM1, QM2).
Jeff are you recommending above design or is it something different.
Also, in the above scenario Src QMgr needs 2 RmtQ definitions for QM1 & QM2, then how is the NLB helpful here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
I'm not recommending anything.
There's documentation on MQ IPT. I'm sure it will be more helpful than me, since I've never used it.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| saurabh25281 wrote: |
| I am curious how the MQIPT & NLB combination can work when we have different QMgrs. |
With all respect to my most worthy associate, I don't think MQIPT is going to work for you.
| saurabh25281 wrote: |
| Also, in the above scenario Src QMgr needs 2 RmtQ definitions for QM1 & QM2, then how is the NLB helpful here. |
It's not. As has been said above, you can't use a NLB to balance between 2 queue managers. You can't use an NLB for DR the way you're trying to; you need to come up with an alternate failover strategy.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| saurabh25281 wrote: |
Thanks everyone for bringing out the design flaws. A clear verdict that a MQ Cluster is more apt for such scenarios.
|
| saurabh25281 wrote: |
In our case QMgr A is the external source
|
External how? Another company? If yes, MQ clustering across networks and across companies is not advisable. As Clubber Lang predicted - "Pain."
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| saurabh25281 |
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 108
Location: Bangalore
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| External how? Another company? If yes, MQ clustering across networks and across companies is not advisable. As Clubber Lang predicted - "Pain." |
Yes another company. And I guess the MQ clustering was advised for internal QMgrs.
| Vitor wrote: |
| With all respect to my most worthy associate, I don't think MQIPT is going to work for you. |
Thanks Vitor for the clarification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
