| Author |
Message
|
| marc.CH |
 Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 5:01 am Post subject: MQ server to server masking Horizontally scaling |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 23 Apr 2024
Posts: 5
Location: Geneva,CH
|
Hello
Lets assume I have a running Qmanager "QM1" running on Data Center 1 "DC1" connected to an external Qmanager "ACME" with SDR/RCV channels and remotes queues.
Applications connected to ACME are able to exchanges messages to applications connected to QM1....so far, all good!
Now, I would like to increase my availability adding a QM2 running on a different Datacenter DC2.
What will be the BEST solution to have less impact on the "ACME" qmanager ?
I tried the following but without success...
- Creating a full copy of QM1 on DC2 with same Qmanager name.
It works like a charm just adding the new IP to the SDR channel on ACME but not good for production as I had to add this param in the Qm stanza file IgnoreSeqNumberMismatch.
In addition, having same name on 2 DC will liaise to misunderstandings to the operators.
- Creating a full copy of QM1 on DC2 with different Qmanager name QM2.
Flow from QM* to ACME is OK. : ACME to define QM1.ACME and QM2.ACME RCV channels.
Flow from ACME to QM* is NOK as it force ACME to define multiple Remote queues with different RQMNAME
Also opened a ticket to IBM SD and they requested me to purchase some solution design services which I am waiting for an offer.
Thanks for you help !
Marc
By the way, this is my first question on this forum ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 7:00 am Post subject: Re: MQ server to server masking Horizontally scaling |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9405
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| marc.CH wrote: |
| What will be the BEST solution to have less impact on the "ACME" qmanager ? |
What precisely does "less impact" mean?
Is your objective workload distribution? If so, look at MQ clusters.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| marc.CH |
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 23 Apr 2024
Posts: 5
Location: Geneva,CH
|
By "less impact" I mean no impact to the application connected to the "ACME" Queue manager.
The perfect solution will be: Dear customer, we enhanced our availability adding more instance of our MQ manager, please add following IP on your SDR channels.
| Quote: |
| Is your objective workload distribution? If so, look at MQ clusters. |
My objective is realy the service availability. Workload distribution is a nice to have.
About clusters, from what I understood, if QM1 and QM2 are part of a cluster.
Still that if a Remote queue on ACME is configured with RQMNAME(QM1) and QM1 is not avaialble. The messages wil be waiting on QM2 to be send on QM1 and therefore from application perspective the messages are stuck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 10:11 am Post subject: Re: MQ server to server masking Horizontally scaling |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9405
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| marc.CH wrote: |
| Now, I would like to increase my availability adding a QM2 running on a different Datacenter DC2. |
Will QM2 consume and process the same message workload as QM1? Will QM2 be a "standy" qmgr doing nothing until QM1 becomes unavailable?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| marc.CH |
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 23 Apr 2024
Posts: 5
Location: Geneva,CH
|
QM2 will consume and process the message as the QM1 in active/active..
The aim is to have same quality of service on our two DC...if we loose one DC, the system still available on the other.
Behind the scenes, QM1 and QM2 are each in active/standby but this is out of scope for time being. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9405
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
What will make messages go to both QM1 and QM2? Will the distribution be round-robin?
_________________
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 Apr 23, 2024 3:38 pm Post subject: Re: MQ server to server masking Horizontally scaling |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2498
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| marc.CH wrote: |
| What will be the BEST solution to have less impact on the "ACME" qmanager ? |
What precisely does "less impact" mean?
Is your objective workload distribution? If so, look at MQ clusters. |
Agree. MQ Clusters meets the requirements given so far.
However, involving external qmgrs in a MQ Cluster has security considerations.
If only 3 qmgrs will be in the cluster, QM1 & QM2 will need to be Full Repositories.
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marc.CH |
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 23 Apr 2024
Posts: 5
Location: Geneva,CH
|
| Quote: |
| What will make messages go to both QM1 and QM2? Will the distribution be round-robin? |
Behind the scene, we will use message streaming feature from MQ 9.3 to duplicate message from QM1 to QM2 to reduce the message lost if one DC disapear...but this is also out of scope from ACME perspective.
For the flow QM*->ACME we would like to have 2 channels QM1.ACME and QM2.ACME : This works fine 
For the flow ACME-> QM* : We would like ACME to connect to the first available QM1/QM2 instance: and here is the issue...
On the below picture, I tried to depict the problem we try to solve with the introduction of DC2/QM2..
steps 1,2,3,4
I may change almost everithing in the yellow box and few in the blue as it on on customer side.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hughson |
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2024 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 09 May 2013
Posts: 1916
Location: Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
|
| marc.CH wrote: |
By "less impact" I mean no impact to the application connected to the "ACME" Queue manager.
The perfect solution will be: Dear customer, we enhanced our availability adding more instance of our MQ manager, please add following IP on your SDR channels. |
Please be aware that if you have two IP address in your CONNAME on a SDR channel, these IP addresses must both point to the SAME QMGR, e.g. a multi-instance or other HA type of failover queue manager instance.
Two queue managers, one called QM1 and one called QM2 are definitely not this.
Cheers,
Morag
_________________
Morag Hughson @MoragHughson
IBM MQ Technical Education Specialist
Get your IBM MQ training here!
MQGem Software |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2024 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9405
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Horizontal scaling has already been invented. It's IBM MQ Clustering.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
