| Author |
Message
|
| swtbart |
 Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2002 3:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 3
|
Hello , does anybody lnow which is dthe better way to start the mqseries listener, using the RUNMQLSR program or the inetd.
Thanks
jcia |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mrlinux |
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2002 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 1261
Location: Detroit,MI USA
|
Well my Preferred way is inetd, this will allow the listener process to restart
without intervention. I have seen the runmqlsr process crash and then it needs to be restarted. Again this is just my thoughts.
_________________
Jeff
IBM Certified Developer MQSeries
IBM Certified Specialist MQSeries
IBM Certified Solutions Expert MQSeries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| dgolding |
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2002 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 668
Location: Switzerland
|
Mr. Linux is correct, you don't have to worry about starting listeners with INETD, it's built in.
HOWEVER, I have heard discussion about using the "runmlqsr" process, as it's multi-threaded and will run as one process only - with inetd a amqcrsta process gets spawned with every receiver channel started.
P.S. Apparently you can run UDP with "runmqlsr" on AIX - never seen it used though - and I suppose the other end must be an AIX box as well (how did you tell the sender side to use UDP and not TCP?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2002 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
| At the MQSeries conference in Dallas, the MQ people were recommending that you use runmqlsr with MQSeries 5.3 (when it ships). I didn't get any specifics, but I would guess it is related to threads vs. processes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| swtbart |
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2002 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 3
|
It's true that using inetd you don't have to worry about restaring listener, but what about performance? What is faster?
Jcia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mrlinux |
| Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2002 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 1261
Location: Detroit,MI USA
|
I would think that the runmqlsr has better performance at startup since it is already up in running when I channel comes up after that I dont think there is that big of a difference relative to the speed of your network connection
_________________
Jeff
IBM Certified Developer MQSeries
IBM Certified Specialist MQSeries
IBM Certified Solutions Expert MQSeries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| NickB |
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2002 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 20 May 2001
Posts: 107
Location: Zurich Financial Services
|
| Also, as well as starting faster, the listener uses less memory than inetd. However, on AIX the listener process has a limit of 100 concurrent connections (at least prior to 5.3). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mrlinux |
| Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2002 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 1261
Location: Detroit,MI USA
|
I know there is a max active channels in qm.ini which should override the 100
limit mentioned in a previous post. I have done it on HPUX using inetd
Also as far as max number of threads for listener are there any Kernel parms for this on AIX. I know HPUX/Linux do.
_________________
Jeff
IBM Certified Developer MQSeries
IBM Certified Specialist MQSeries
IBM Certified Solutions Expert MQSeries
[ This Message was edited by: mrlinux on 2002-04-25 08:15 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
