| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| MQ Series Client or Server |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| amateur |
 Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:01 pm Post subject: MQ Series Client or Server |
 |
|
Novice
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 11
|
Hi,
I would like to know the pro's and con's of MQ Series Client and Server Installation on an application.
I know for sure that if the no. of Interfaces to an application are very minimal, it makes sense to install MQ Client on it (So that we can save one Server licence [Cost Factor]) and from there connect to some other Server.
Are there any technicalities involved which forms a critical parameter to decide Client or Server?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Amateur |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Tibor |
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 20 May 2001
Posts: 1033
Location: Hungary
|
If you need distribituted transaction (XA) you have to install an MQ server or an Extended Transactional Client. But in this way you cannot decrease the cost factor 
Tibor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| amateur |
| Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 11
|
Tibor,
Thank you very much for your response.
Can you please elaborate on the Distributed Transaction?
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Amateur |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
We use clients where possible. Aside from the cost of a full queue manager there is also the management of that queue manager.
We prefer to have fewer, but highly available and scalable queue managers, using hardware clusters.
The main reason to have a queue manager on the same platform as the application is to avoid dependency on a separate queue manager being available in order for the application to function.
However if real-time messaging is required anyway then having a local queue manager is no advantage in that sense.
We haven't seen much performance difference between client channels and queue manager channels.
Last edited by zpat on Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Tibor |
| Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2005 2:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 20 May 2001
Posts: 1033
Location: Hungary
|
| amateur wrote: |
| Can you please elaborate on the Distributed Transaction? |
Sorry, the right expression is coordinated transaction. From Application Programming Guide:
| Quote: |
Syncpoint support operates on two types of units of work: local and global.
A local unit of work is one in which the only resources updated are those of the WebSphere MQ queue manager. Here syncpoint coordination is provided by the queue manager itself using a single-phase commit procedure.
A global unit of work is one in which resources belonging to other resource managers, such as databases, are also updated. WebSphere MQ can coordinate such units of work itself. They can also be coordinated by an external commitment controller such as another transaction manager or the i5/OS commitment controller.
For full integrity, use a two-phase commit procedure. Two-phase commit can be provided by XA-compliant transaction managers and databases such as IBM’s TXSeries and UDB and also by the i5/OS commitment controller. WebSphere MQ products (except WebSphere MQ for iSeries and WebSphere MQ for z/OS) can coordinate global units of work using a two-phase commit process. WebSphere MQ for iSeries can act as a resource manager for global units of work within a WebSphere Application Server environment, but cannot act as a transaction manager. |
HTH,
Tibor |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
