| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| MQSeries transmission channel |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| sam |
 Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2002 11:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 02 Apr 2002
Posts: 52
|
| I have a remote Queue definitions and was thinking whether I could use the same transmissoin channel for sending all the meesages out? what are the pros and cons to this approach. Do I really need a seperate transmission channel for each remote queue? thanks so much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqonnet |
| Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2002 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 1114
Location: Boston, Ma, Usa.
|
More of a design issue and would differ from one requirement/environment to the other. Here are brief answers to your doubts.
I have a remote Queue definitions and was thinking whether I could use the same transmissoin channel for sending all the meesages out?
---You could always configure the same channel for all your remote queue definitions. But bear in mind, the amount of workload you are putting it through.
what are the pros and cons to this approach.
---Pros. Less management.
---Cons. More workload on a single Channel. Messages might be lost.
Cheers.
Kumar
_________________
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Developer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Solution Designer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 System Administrator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sam |
| Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2002 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 02 Apr 2002
Posts: 52
|
| Thanks for the reply. So do you support defining multiple channels as to one single channel to service all the requests. Also Is it okay if I use one single transmission queue to send all my requests on to a remote queue? or is it the same logic which applies to channels? Given the Scenario that there would be many messages which could be exchanged per day is it better for me to define multiple channels and transmission queues? Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqonnet |
| Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2002 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 1114
Location: Boston, Ma, Usa.
|
So do you support defining multiple channels as to one single channel to service all the requests.
---I would always go with minimal number of channels, unless i have to define more channels and it pays me off more, than being otherwise. Bear in mind each channel is associated with an MCA and a responder and they all consume Cpu and memory. And hence the less of these the better. It all goes into the design aspect.
Also Is it okay if I use one single transmission queue to send all my requests on to a remote queue?
---Each channel MUST have it's own Transmission queue. A TQ being used be one channel cannot be used by any other channel.
Given the Scenario that there would be many messages which could be exchanged per day is it better for me to define multiple channels and transmission queues?
---In this scenario, i dont think you need multiple channels. You could always use the same channel to process all your messages. Also you need to consider the performance improvement of using only single channel over multiple channels. Since there is always a threshold associated with every object, so is with channels too. So, you need to decide as to what you would need to do. Other aspects which infulence this decision would be messages being put in Syncpoint, Persistent/Non-persistent.
Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Kumar
_________________
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Developer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 Solution Designer
IBM Certified WebSphere MQ V5.3 System Administrator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2002 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7716
|
I feel that one pair of channel pairs between queue managers, with the associated transmit queues on each end named after the queue manager that the channel goes to is adequate for 99% of cases.
One scenario where you might want to add another channel is this.
App1 on the QM1 sends thousands of very small,very time sensitive, nonpersitent messages to QM2. App2 sends occasional messages that are persistent and 75 meg in size. In this case, create an "express" channel to handle the little guys from QM1 to QM2. And create a "heavy duty" channel for App2. In this case, the big guys won't hold up the little ones. Pick one of these 2 channels (probably express) to be your main communication between QM1 and QM2, and give that channel the transmit queue called QM1. All messages from QM1, including the little ones, but excluding the whoppers, will use this as the main pipe.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| StefanSievert |
| Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2002 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 28 Oct 2001
Posts: 333
Location: San Francisco
|
I second Peter's first statement: You should be fine using one channel pair between two systems.
For the scenario he mentions, I would think that setting the NPMSPEED(FAST) attribute on the channel will achieve more or less the same than having a separate channel, but there still might be a slight advantage to have a second channel for this. Probably not that big of a difference, though.
My 2 cents...
Stefan
_________________
Stefan Sievert
IBM Certified * WebSphere MQ |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
