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 SupportIBM MQ HA/multi-instance with glusterfs replicated storage

Post new topicReply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2
IBM MQ HA/multi-instance with glusterfs replicated storage View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Ganford
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2020 7:07 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Novice

Joined: 09 Aug 2011
Posts: 22

Vitor wrote:
fjb_saper wrote:
exerk wrote:
Ganford wrote:
I understand you very well. I have also experience with Veritas, AIX HACM, RDQM, there is problem that nobody want to invest in such solutions...

As is usually the case: a Rolls-Royce solution wanted for the price of a Trabant...

You should at least downgrade that to a Wartburg...


I had a friend growing up who's family owned a Wartburg. I accept that it sounds highly improbable, as does the claim I had a friend growing up. It was a different time, I was a different person.......

But this penny pinching is an ongoing problem. As part of my duties, I was forced to deny an application team who'd decided not to pay for the enterprise standard software for a given solution (nothing MQ / IIB, another part of my brief) but had used magical juju to develop their own solution.

After much wrangling and a couple of games of "who's got the biggest stick", I was overruled. They pointed out that they'd been using it in QA for months without issues, they didn't have time or budget to figure out my solution architecture and they didn't care how many desks I chewed through. I took it well and my team was able to talk to me face to face only 2 days later.

On the designated Monday, I asked (as I routinely did) if they'd been any problems with the weekend implementations; both to see how many fires I needed to put out and to see if they'd had any problems going live I could gloat over. It had gone live 2am Saturday morning, crashed 5pm Saturday evening and they'd given up on it 4am Sunday morning because it wouldn't stay up for more than 30 minutes.

I laughed so hard I literally wet myself. I had to go home and change, and my team had to up their meds because my cackle had freaked them out.


This is not helping at all, but I can pretty well imagine it so at least it is funny

I know that I am asking/trying to reach for almost Impossible solution, but what else can be done. Oh year, I will switch the job... X-D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
belchman
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2020 7:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Partisan

Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 369
Location: Ohio, USA

I depends on what your relationship with IBM is but from what our REP says (for example) , MQ advanced is 120 PVU vs 100 PVU for regular MQ. Also, each inactive node is 1/2 cost, or 60 PVU. So total cost for 1 RDQM instance is 240 PVU and a multi-instance would be 200 PVU. So the RDQM would be 20% more expensive than multi-instance and way more resilient. I assume more resilient because we have not implemented RDQM yet. It is in progress.

I do know we will not do multi-instance ever again due to the headaches with lower level stuff causing failovers too often.
_________________
Make three correct guesses consecutively and you will establish a reputation as an expert. ~ Laurence J. Peter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
exerk
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2020 10:11 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6206

Ganford wrote:
...I will fight little bit glusterFS setup over nfs. I still have some issue there...

And still be on an unsupported solution?

Ganford wrote:
...Still, I did also another research on internet, and looks like that maybe only "free" alternative will be some kind of DRBD home made solution.

See above...
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
next
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:22 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Voyager

Joined: 02 May 2010
Posts: 75

We did adopt the gluster fs from redhat, it is giving lot of issues every now and then with locks not released properly, failovers, data corruption too etc
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ganford
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:34 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Novice

Joined: 09 Aug 2011
Posts: 22

belchman wrote:
I depends on what your relationship with IBM is but from what our REP says (for example) , MQ advanced is 120 PVU vs 100 PVU for regular MQ. Also, each inactive node is 1/2 cost, or 60 PVU. So total cost for 1 RDQM instance is 240 PVU and a multi-instance would be 200 PVU. So the RDQM would be 20% more expensive than multi-instance and way more resilient. I assume more resilient because we have not implemented RDQM yet. It is in progress.

I do know we will not do multi-instance ever again due to the headaches with lower level stuff causing failovers too often.


Hi, thanks for costs details. I still feel little bit lsot about this. I was doing research with our support team, but the number which I have got were little bit high and it was rejected. I will once again try to re-check our number. I will put what I how found until now bellow:
*********
Price of RDQM(IBM MQ Advance license extension):
"If we want to use RDQM as active/standby configuration, we need to order one IBM MQ Advance license and two IBM MQ Advance replica licenses. (1+2 for TEST and 1+2 for DEV)

If we want to utilize all 3 nodes at same time, we need to order 3 IBM MQ Advance licenses (3 for TEST and 3 for PROD)

Price will be like for replica 29.87EUR/PVU and for active 85.27Eur/PVU.
Tieto has given package of IBM MQ licenses and we should utilize that, therefore we should not order new "IBM MQ Advance", but instead we need order "MQ Trade Up License"-upgrade.

Example of calculation with only active/active : both our environments should be combine 2400PVU * 85.27EUR we gat max price 204 648EUR per year. Additionally IBM should give us discount 20%. If we want active/standby configuration price would lower because IBM MQ advance replica costs only 30EUR/pvu."
*********

So if you assume that by using RDQM we should maybe get only 20% higher price then for MI configuration, there might be possibility for me to get it. So just maybe all numbers which I got for now are just wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Post new topicReply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2 Page 2 of 2

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral IBM MQ SupportIBM MQ HA/multi-instance with glusterfs replicated storage
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.