| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| IBM Docs Discrepancy? Multi-Instance QMgrs multiple standby? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| simonalexander2005 |
 Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:59 am Post subject: IBM Docs Discrepancy? Multi-Instance QMgrs multiple standby? |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 13 Jun 2016
Posts: 55
|
The general documentation around High availability configurations (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ibm-mq/9.1?topic=restart-high-availability-configurations) says:
| Quote: |
Multi-instance queue managers
Instances of the same queue manager configured on two or more computers. By starting multiple instances, one instance becomes the active instance and the other instances become standbys. If the active instance fails, a standby instance running on a different computer automatically takes over. |
The linked documentation specifically on Multi-Instance Queue Managers (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/ibm-mq/9.1?topic=configurations-multi-instance-queue-managers) says:
| Quote: |
| You can add the queue manager configuration information to multiple servers, and choose any two servers to run as the active/standby pair. There is a limit of a total of two instances. You cannot have two standby instances and one active instance. |
So from that I am assuming that you can configure multiple servers, but only "activate" two of them at a time - one primary and one standby? But the first quote says " By starting multiple instances, one instance becomes the active instance and the other instances become standbys" (plural).
Is it just badly worded? Which is correct? Could I have multiple standbys or not? (and if so, can I specify the order in which they take over from each other?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2021 11:01 am Post subject: Re: IBM Docs Discrepancy? Multi-Instance QMgrs multiple stan |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| simonalexander2005 wrote: |
| ...I am assuming that you can configure multiple servers, but only "activate" two of them at a time - one primary and one standby?... |
Correct...
| simonalexander2005 wrote: |
| ...But the first quote says "By starting multiple instances, one instance becomes the active instance and the other instances become standbys" (plural)... |
Better wording would have been "...and one of the other instances can host the standby..."
| simonalexander2005 wrote: |
| ...Is it just badly worded? Which is correct? Could I have multiple standbys or not? (and if so, can I specify the order in which they take over from each other?) |
Yes, it's badly worded (as the implication is that you can have multiple standby instances running), one active and one standby is correct, no you cannot have multiple standby instances, therefore cannot specify an order of takeover.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
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
|
|
|
|
