| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| To setmqinst or not setmqinst, that is the question |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Should I set up a default instance? |
| yes |
|
50% |
[ 2 ] |
| no |
|
50% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 4 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| belchman |
 Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:18 am Post subject: To setmqinst or not setmqinst, that is the question |
 |
|
Partisan
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 386
Location: Ohio, USA
|
On this site, I have used the words of many of you as input into my decision to never run the command setmqinst to set up a default instance of MQ binaries.
This decision is causing contention on our MQ team.
Can some of you please opine as to why you think it is best to not set a default? Also, if you wish, please opine as to why you think it is best to set a default.
I am in the camp of it is best to not set a default because it is best to be explicit instead of counting on a default. For example, I do not set default persistence on a queue for the same reason-- it eliminates doubt.
Please opine. I truly appreciate it.
Regards, 
_________________
Make three correct guesses consecutively and you will establish a reputation as an expert. ~ Laurence J. Peter |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| markt |
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 508
|
My personal preference is - in general - not to set a default installation. For the same kind of reasons you suggest. It forces commands to be explicit about where they are going to be executed. And when you are writing admin scripts, you are forced to consider that there might be multi-installs. Too many scripts I have seen will not work with non-default paths.
But for environments which are usually guaranteed to only ever have one installation such as a container (while it's possible to create containers with multi-installs, I don't think it's a likely scenario) then I DO have it as a default setting for simplicity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
What he said...
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
If the multiple installation is just a temporary thing waiting upgrade, having a default instance avoids having to run setmqenv before running anything in batch... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| belchman |
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 386
Location: Ohio, USA
|
We have 1 "it depends"  I thought about adding it but thought I would get nothing but "it depends".
| Quote: |
| If the multiple installation is just a temporary thing waiting upgrade, having a default instance avoids having to run setmqenv before running anything in batch |
My position is that the batch process needs to source setmqenv into their runtime shell. I am assuming the batch process is an MQ client. I am assuming that this day and age (of CSD), we have to always be ready to have at least 2 versions on the same host.
_________________
Make three correct guesses consecutively and you will establish a reputation as an expert. ~ Laurence J. Peter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| markt wrote: |
| My personal preference is - in general - not to set a default installation. For the same kind of reasons you suggest. It forces commands to be explicit about where they are going to be executed. And when you are writing admin scripts, you are forced to consider that there might be multi-installs. Too many scripts I have seen will not work with non-default paths. |
If I had a dollar or every default that bit me ...
I grew up on m/f MQ where multi-everything has been in place for multi-decades. VRMs have lived side-by-side quite happily. Yes, it takes planning and appropriate environment variables to point to the correct one; but, isn't that what we get paid for?
| markt wrote: |
| But for environments which are usually guaranteed to only ever have one installation such as a container (while it's possible to create containers with multi-installs, I don't think it's a likely scenario) then I DO have it as a default setting for simplicity. |
If I had a dollar for every "guarantee" that was subsequently withdrawn ...
_________________
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 |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: To setmqinst or not setmqinst, that is the question |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| belchman wrote: |
| Can some of you please opine as to why you think it is best to not set a default? Also, if you wish, please opine as to why you think it is best to set a default. |
We set a default, for simplicity. We don't make much use of multiple installations. Much of our fleet pre-dates the introduction of multiple installations, so to avoid having to change anything in application land, we always set a default.
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hughson |
| Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: To setmqinst or not setmqinst, that is the question |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 1959
Location: Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
|
| belchman wrote: |
| I am in the camp of it is best to not set a default because it is best to be explicit instead of counting on a default. |
I am also in the "learn to run setmqenv, then you know what you have got". I may be rather unusual in having rather a lot of installations on my main machine though - in fact last year I found a defect in MQ installation as a result of have "too many" (albeit many less than the supported 128 installations). I have a small script on my Windows box to run setmqenv, to add the samples to my path, and if run with '?' to remind me what all the installations on the machine are (since dspmqinst scrolls off the screen).
I never set a default queue manager either.
| belchman wrote: |
| For example, I do not set default persistence on a queue for the same reason-- it eliminates doubt. |
I hate to tell you this, but even if you have not set a default persistence on a queue, there is one set anyway. They come by default with DEFPSIST(NO).
Cheers,
Morag
_________________
Morag Hughson @MoragHughson
IBM MQ Technical Education Specialist
Get your IBM MQ training here!
MQGem Software |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: To setmqinst or not setmqinst, that is the question |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| hughson wrote: |
| belchman wrote: |
| For example, I do not set default persistence on a queue for the same reason-- it eliminates doubt. |
I hate to tell you this, but even if you have not set a default persistence on a queue, there is one set anyway. They come by default with DEFPSIST(NO).
Cheers,
Morag |
It's worth repeating a well-known fact. An app can easily set the persistence of each message that it puts to a queue, in which case setting DEFPSIST to YES or NO will have no effect. Apps designers are encouraged to do this, to meet their QoS requirements, and not be subject to the whim of the MQ admin changing the DEFPSIST value.
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
