ASG
IBM
Zystems
Cressida
Icon
Netflexity
 
  MQSeries.net
Search  Search       Tech Exchange      Education      Certifications      Library      Info Center      SupportPacs      LinkedIn  Search  Search                                                                   FAQ  FAQ   Usergroups  Usergroups
 
Register  ::  Log in Log in to check your private messages
 
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support RSS Feed - Message Broker Support

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral IBM MQ SupportIsn't RDQM too wasteful?

Post new topicReply to topic
Isn't RDQM too wasteful? View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
pcelari
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 10:06 am Post subject: Isn't RDQM too wasteful? Reply with quote

Partisan

Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 364
Location: New York

Greeting...

I just read about RDQM and wonder what advantage it brings comparing to multi-instance QMgr. While the single storage in multi-instance qmgr can be guaranteed to be high available through replications behind the scene, the replication of data among three instances in RDQM is heavy.

and because of the floating IP based fail-over, each host has to dedicate a NIC to each qmgr.

Isn't this way too wasteful? and brings hardly any more benefit comparing to multi-instance QM? Any insight would be appreciated.
_________________
pcelari
-----------------------------------------
- a master of always being a newbie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:05 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 8534
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

Wasteful of what? Heavy of what? Are NICs suddenly a valuable resource?

Offer (recommend) a better scenario if you find this one lacking?
_________________
There are two types of people in this world:
1) Those that can extrapolate from incomplete data
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pcelari
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:40 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Partisan

Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 364
Location: New York

despite that NICs being dirt cheap, if you have to use three hosts (VMs) while you can afford losing a max of one. That doesn't sound quite frugal.

I setup multi-instance QMgrs since it was first introduced, never had an outage, not even when our DCs were moved. So I want to know if there is a solid rationale to go RDMQ.

not mean to argue though, just asking for insight beyond what I could see under my very limited knowledge and experience.
_________________
pcelari
-----------------------------------------
- a master of always being a newbie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 8534
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

Really, youve never had an outage? Wow, youre the one.

I guess Im a bit put off by your presumption that MI satisfies all business requirements, that its on us to defend our choices otherwise.

An an exercise, select one of the alternates, and compare and contrast their cost/benefits. Then bring us your studied results.
_________________
There are two types of people in this world:
1) Those that can extrapolate from incomplete data
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gbaddeley
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 2:40 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi

Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2040
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Hi pcelari. RDQM is a MQ product feature to improve QoS. Other MQ QoS related features need to be reviewed against your requirements for cost / effort / complexity / resource usage / supportability / recovery time objectives and the value attached to data QoS.

As well as RDQM, MIQM and MQ Clustering, you should also look at OS HA features that are supported by MQ, such as zOS Sysplex, AIX PowerHA, Windows MSCS. We can't tell you the best choice in your situation, but are happy to advise based on our experiences.
_________________
Glenn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pcelari
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:03 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Partisan

Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 364
Location: New York

Thanks much for sharing your opinions. The fact that someone is passionate about the choice seems to indicate RDMQ is a solid solution in certain requirement.
...
Quote:
its on us to defend our choices otherwise...


... but there isn't a need to defend as it wasn't being attacked, just asking to share a good reason for the choice.

looks like this discussion can conclude now.
_________________
pcelari
-----------------------------------------
- a master of always being a newbie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fjb_saper
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20138
Location: LI,NY

I believe the most pressing argument for RDQM is the availability of storage.
The storage in RDQM is replicated, which means that if QM1 goes down on host 1 it is still available on host 2. MIMQ has a single point of failure which is its storage. If the storage goes bye bye, so does your queue manager, including the stand-by...
_________________
MQ & Broker admin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:
Post new topicReply to topic Page 1 of 1

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral IBM MQ SupportIsn't RDQM too wasteful?
Jump to:



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
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP


Theme by Dustin Baccetti
Powered by phpBB 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Copyright MQSeries.net. All rights reserved.