| Author |
Message
|
| apmohan |
 Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:42 am Post subject: Alternative for IBM MQFTE |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 27
|
Hello All,
We have been using IBM MQFTE since long time for performing the FILE TRANSFERS between system to system, but it is consuming huge memory as the JAVA process been used.
Can anyone advise the other possible methods to do the file transfers which would be a great help for us.
Please help 
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:45 am Post subject: Re: Alternative for IBM MQFTE |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| apmohan wrote: |
| We have been using IBM MQFTE since long time for performing the FILE TRANSFERS between system to system, but it is consuming huge memory as the JAVA process been used. |
These two comments are not correlated. Especially as MQ does not natively use Java.
| apmohan wrote: |
| Can anyone advise the other possible methods to do the file transfers which would be a great help for us. |
There have to be hundreds of managed file transfer products on the market, including a number sold by IBM. Draw up a list of requirements and make your choice.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| apmohan |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 27
|
Thanks Vitor for the quick response.
We have been using Ant scripts for the various operations like extracting the date format or changing the date format.
Also we have defined the Java to do archiving of the files, renaming the files, handling regular expressions, etc., which is consuming huge memory now which ends up in restarting the MQFTE Agents often !!
Any view on this ?
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| apmohan wrote: |
| Any view on this ? |
You've done a great job inventing a wheel that does a worse job than almost any other wheel.
So you have written bad Java that consumes a huge amount of memory to do very simple things and your first thought is to replace the non-Java components. It does clarify why you thought Ant was a good choice for a coordination tool.
You've previously posted about an IIB problem. From this I infer you have IIB. I am unable to think of any reason you'd own this very expensive IBM product and still be trying to use Java for the 3 things you list which are the reasons people who work with files elect to buy IIB. Or why you'd continue to use Ant for file workflow.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RogerLacroix |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 3264
Location: London, ON Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:51 pm Post subject: Re: Alternative for IBM MQFTE |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| apmohan wrote: |
Hello All,
We have been using IBM MQFTE since long time for performing the FILE TRANSFERS between system to system, but it is consuming huge memory as the JAVA process been used.
Can anyone advise the other possible methods to do the file transfers which would be a great help for us.
Please help
Thanks. |
IBM WebSphere MQ File Transfer Edition (FTE) v7.0 has been out of support for a while, replaced by Managed File Transfer (MFT), and now fully integrated into the MQ s/w packaging since v7.5. I hope you are now using MFT.
We have thousands of MFT agents and don't have any issues with excessive memory usage. Do you use MFT exits, pre, or post processsing? Can you provide any specific examples of increasing memory usage?
I doubt that you will find an alternative product that provides the reliability and features of MFT.
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2018 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: Alternative for IBM MQFTE |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| apmohan wrote: |
| ... but it is consuming huge memory as the JAVA process been used. |
More RAM seems a simple, direct and inexpensive solution to this problem.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| RogerLacroix |
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:01 am Post subject: Re: Alternative for IBM MQFTE |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 3264
Location: London, ON Canada
|
| gbaddeley wrote: |
We have thousands of MFT agents and don't have any issues with excessive memory usage. Do you use MFT exits, pre, or post processsing? Can you provide any specific examples of increasing memory usage?
I doubt that you will find an alternative product that provides the reliability and features of MFT. |
There are a lot of companies using Universal File Mover (UFM). UFM can use many different transport methods and 1 of which is MQ. Are you saying that FTE use of MQ is more reliable than UFM's use of MQ because I don't think so.
UFM has a boat load of features. I guess you did not look at the UFM overview page.
I've done several sessions at MQ Technical Conference about UFM. In one of the sessions, I took questions from mqseries.net about FTE/MFT that cannot be done and showed how easy it was to do with UFM.
The 5 features that most companies like are:
(1) Encrypt/Decrypt messages without requiring SSL/TLS certificates (only requires 2 keywords on the MQSend action)
(2) Compress messages with a single attribute (decompression is automatic)
(3) UFM can send files of any size over MQ. UFM breaks the files into chucks to keep memory use to a minimum.
(4) UFM can do both pre and post actions when sending/receiving files
(5) Customers can make changes to the source code and then submit the changes to me
Regards,
Roger Lacroix
Capitalware Inc.
_________________
Capitalware: Transforming tomorrow into today.
Connected to MQ!
Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2018 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: Alternative for IBM MQFTE |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| RogerLacroix wrote: |
| There are a lot of companies using Universal File Mover (UFM). UFM can use many different transport methods and 1 of which is MQ. Are you saying that FTE use of MQ is more reliable than UFM's use of MQ because I don't think so. |
Hi Roger. Its been a while since I looked at the UFM overview. It certainly has a lot of features that FTE / MFT does not provide. I was not implying any reliance on MQ messaging for QoS.
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
