| Author |
Message
|
| bearsonli |
 Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 7:59 am Post subject: qremote definition |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 16
|
Hi,
In the qremote definition, can i set the rqmname the same as my local qmgr name?
If not, how do I get around if my local qmgr and remote target qmgr has the same name, and I need to set up remote queues? Can qmgr name remapping help by setting up alias for qremote?
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| offshore |
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 222
|
bearsonli,
Yes you can.
Why didn't you just try it?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EddieA |
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 2453
Location: Los Angeles
|
Yes. (But I would NOT recommend using the same QM name in a single 'environment').
In the Remote definition, the QM name is just used to populate the XMITQ header. The message is then put to the XMITQ defined in the Remote definition.
Cheers,
_________________
Eddie Atherton
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bearsonli |
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
Posts: 16
|
Actually I tried it but got MQRC2087.
The MQ Messages manual stated that this error will be generated when RemoteQMgrName is blank or the the name of the local qmgr.
Has anybody really done this?
In my past "single environment" experience I never named qmgrs the same across network.
Thanks again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ratan |
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
Qmgr names should be unique in a network.
_________________
-Ratan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EddieA |
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 2453
Location: Los Angeles
|
Hmmm. I'll admit that I'd never tried it before I posted my answer.  It was based on how I thought it resolved names.
You should be able to do it with QM Aliases. On the sending QM, define the Remote definition to send the message to a 'different, non-existant QM', via the XMITQ to the 'real' destination. On the destination QM, have a QM Alias that redirects the incoming QMname to 'this' one.
Cheers,
_________________
Eddie Atherton
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| oz1ccg |
| Posted: Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 10 Feb 2002
Posts: 628
Location: Denmark
|
To make it work (almost like you want it), use symbolic names for the one qmgr, like QMGRA and QMGRB.
To make it work, on one of the qmgrs create a qmgr alias of friend:
DEFINE QREMOTE('QMGRA') RQMNAME('') RNAME('') XMITQ('')
DEFINE QLOCAL(QMGRB') USAGE(XMITQ)
and on the other qmgr:
DEFINE QREMOTE('QMGRB') RQMNAME('') RNAME('') XMITQ('')
DEFINE QLOCAL(QMGRA') USAGE(XMITQ)
(hopefull it's the right one, or I'll correct it later on).
You are not allow to have a QMGR_alias with the same as your local QMGR, so you can circumvent it this way.
This means that you only have to change those applications that will communicate with the remote qmgr. I guess this solutions is describes in the intercommunications book.
Just another topic to make a cookbook on...
Just my $0.02 
_________________
Regards, Jørgen
Home of BlockIP2, the last free MQ Security exit ver. 3.00
Cert. on WMQ, WBIMB, SWIFT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kman |
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 309
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
|
interesting discussion.
One of the reason why a queue manager name must be unique in an MQ network is that the queue manager name is used as part fo building the msgid and correlid. So if you ask the queue manager to set these ids, then there is a possibility of not having unique ids. To circumvent that possibility - MQName must be unique.
Also the reason why you are getting the error 2087 in the first place - to enforce this rule - I guess.
It's avoiding having trouble doing the name resolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| offshore |
| Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 222
|
bearsonli,
looks like my bad too. i didn't test it fully, just created a RQ definition w/ local qmgr name in the rqmgr name field.
i guess i was under the impression similar to EddieA's thinking on how the name would be resolved....my bad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| oz1ccg |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 10 Feb 2002
Posts: 628
Location: Denmark
|
Getting a unique msgid ...... problem with more qmgrs having the same name in the same network ?? NOPE
Yes it's right that the messageid's are not unique, but it can only be a problem with a shared queue. And you can't have two qmgrs in a //SYSPLEX with the same name.
When are we using the unique message id ?
This is typicly used by the "client" application to match the request to the reply, and sice an application should not connect to two qmgrs with the same name, no problem seen from the client application.... The server application don't care about msgid/corrid, just move msgid to corrid, and send the reply back to the clients qmgr.
In theoy we can have two "clients" connected to two qmgrs with the same name, but as stated in my previous post here; some program must be changed in this case and use the QMGR_ALIAS instead.
Just my $0.02
_________________
Regards, Jørgen
Home of BlockIP2, the last free MQ Security exit ver. 3.00
Cert. on WMQ, WBIMB, SWIFT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
