| Author |
Message
|
| IIBnewbie2018 |
 Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:55 pm Post subject: Managing the order of the start of message flows |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 18 Jun 2018
Posts: 9
|
Hello All,
Need help to understand in what order do the flows under an execution group start once the broker is restarted.
Can we change the order in which the flows under an execution group starts after the restart. I checked online and it wasn't possible in the earlier versions but would like to know if anyone has more information on this.
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2494
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
Why do you have a dependency on msg flow start order? Flows should be designed to not have any operational issues due to start order.
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| timber |
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 1280
|
| I agree with gbaddeley. Your requirement is unusual, and needs to be explained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| IIBnewbie2018 |
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 18 Jun 2018
Posts: 9
|
Thank you for the replies.
Sorry if I hadn't explained the issue well, the message flows do not have any operational dependency on the order of starting.
The reason I needed it was to make sure that a critical message flow in the execution group starts first, before the other not-so-important ones so it can start processing the messages immediately.
I was thinking of creating a new execution group exclusively for the critical interface but wanted to check with the experts here if there is a better way to achieve the objective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| timber |
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Aug 2015
Posts: 1280
|
| Regardless of startup considerations, if the message flow has different non-functional requirements from the others then it should be in a separate execution group (integration server). Otherwise one of the other message flows could take up resources required by the high-priority message flow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2494
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| timber wrote: |
| Regardless of startup considerations, if the message flow has different non-functional requirements from the others then it should be in a separate execution group (integration server). Otherwise one of the other message flows could take up resources required by the high-priority message flow. |
Agree. Critical flows should be in separated IS's. This allows IS's to be started / restarted without affecting other critical / non-critical flows. We have *lots* of IS's for this very reason.
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| IIBnewbie2018 |
| Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 18 Jun 2018
Posts: 9
|
| Thank you everyone. The information is helpful. I'll create new Integration Servers as required. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
