| Author |
Message
|
| jefflowrey |
 Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| vennela wrote: |
Is there a plan to support Informix ?
Is this solution scalable? What I mean is, is there any known limit on the number of QMGRs that it can support. |
I wouldn't really call this solution scalable, given what they say on the design page.
Since it appears to exclusively use PCF messages, it requires either one queue manager client connection for every qm in your network, or that your qm network is fully connected and every qm is running a command server and you have your security worked out so that all of your QMs can be administered using PCFs.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| malammik |
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 397
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
| vennela wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Current supported database is MySQL and support for DB2, Oracle, SQLServer and PostgreSQL is scheduled for release by the end of Q2 2005. |
Is there a plan to support Informix ?
Is this solution scalable? What I mean is, is there any known limit on the number of QMGRs that it can support. |
Forgot to answer your question about scalability. We have tested Qflex with up to 12 queue managers with monitoring and performance gathering turned on and it worked w/o any perfomance degradation. The way that product is designed there is very little overhead of adding another queue manager. If k1*k2*1/k3*1/10*k4= my perofrmance then k1 and k2 are going to be number of total queues for which performance gathering and or monitoring is turned on and k2 will be your polling or collection intervals. Qflex is multithreaded. There is a separate thread for every queue manager monitoring task and a separate thread for performance gathering. Threads are created and launch only when the task is due to be performed. Thread timing and scheduleding is provided by the quartz library. http://www.opensymphony.com/quartz/
Feel free to ask more questions.
_________________
Mikhail Malamud
http://www.netflexity.com
http://groups.google.com/group/qflex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| malammik |
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 397
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| vennela wrote: |
Is there a plan to support Informix ?
Is this solution scalable? What I mean is, is there any known limit on the number of QMGRs that it can support. |
I wouldn't really call this solution scalable, given what they say on the design page.
Since it appears to exclusively use PCF messages, it requires either one queue manager client connection for every qm in your network, or that your qm network is fully connected and every qm is running a command server and you have your security worked out so that all of your QMs can be administered using PCFs. |
Yes it does instantiate one connection for each queue manager task. How else is it suppose to get the info? Connections are pooled however. Running PCF commands is the least intrusive way to query queue manager about the status of the objects. If you have a better idea on how the scalability can be improved, please let us know.
_________________
Mikhail Malamud
http://www.netflexity.com
http://groups.google.com/group/qflex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| malammik wrote: |
| If you have a better idea on how the scalability can be improved, please let us know. |
You made a design decision. Like all design decisions, it has implications that are both positive and negative.
Just because I happen to think your design is not really scalable, doesn't mean that I'm correct, nor that other people would agree.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| malammik |
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 397
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| malammik wrote: |
| If you have a better idea on how the scalability can be improved, please let us know. |
You made a design decision. Like all design decisions, it has implications that are both positive and negative.
Just because I happen to think your design is not really scalable, doesn't mean that I'm correct, nor that other people would agree. |
One of our main goals was to reduce administrative overhead for OS and MQ admins which meant agentless solution and I really dont feel we sacrificed anything in terms of scalability.
_________________
Mikhail Malamud
http://www.netflexity.com
http://groups.google.com/group/qflex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
Jeff
I don't understand what you would propose as a way of 'discovering' or defining your MQ network that would be more efficient.
Even the IBM remote admin tool (MO71) has to have some defining done and uses client channels in order to work.
Could you please elaborate on a better solution? I ask because I have been asked to work on a project to 'auto-detect' our MQ subsystem and short of putting my own TCP/IP listener on every MQ Server box I don't know how best to achieve this without using some sort of client channel array. With my own TCP/IP listener program in place I can do it without client channels but rolling the listener out is going to be a huge battle here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Rolling out a new program to your MQ Server boxes should be no bigger or smaller an effort than rolling out a new FixPack for MQ to all your MQ Server boxes.
I'm not saying I have a better solution than an agent-based approach or a PCF based approach.
I'm saying that I, personally, don't like the PCF based approach - particularly for monitoring. If the command server is down, you lose everything, and that can therefore mask real problems with "fake" ones. And command servers are security risks that runmqsc is not.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
Jeff
I totally agree with you about rolling code out onto servers, but my issue is one of getting another section to do so, especially to production servers. You know how it goes? Until you can prove otherwise it is your code that is causing the problem. 
I guess 'they' (our server people) are twitchy about this because of internal issues here and maybe it isn't such a big deal elsewhere.
Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
| Quote: |
| Qflex will support following versions of WebSphere MQ: 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 on all IBM supported platforms |
What about Willow's MQ QMGR's like NCR's MP-RAS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| malammik |
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 397
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| robsdman |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:39 pm Post subject: QFlex Install |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 23 Aug 2002
Posts: 27
|
| Has anyone besides malammik has successfully installed QFLEX? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| malammik |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 397
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
| Yes. We have it installed and running on Windows. We are having trouble with the SMTP part but we are working on that. We suspect it is something we are failing to do. We setup what we thought was correct but we obviously missed something somewhere. I took a 'watched' queue manager down and no email was sent but QFlex did show it as down |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| malammik |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 397
Location: Philadelphia, PA
|
Kevin, here are instructions to setting up SMTP.
Go to Options-SMTP. Put a check next to box values you are changing. For most environment all you need is SMTP server and EMAIL to send alerts to. After that.
Secruity -> Edit Administrator -> And set his email address so Qflex can say who the email is coming from. And that's it.
_________________
Mikhail Malamud
http://www.netflexity.com
http://groups.google.com/group/qflex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
malammik
Thanks. I think it is the security bit that we missed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
