| Author |
Message
|
| awatson72 |
 Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:47 am Post subject: Multiple SVRCONN channels for same app |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Apr 2004
Posts: 69
Location: Freeport, Maine
|
This has probably been covered before on this board, but my search didn't turn anything up.
With MQ 5.3 CSD7, would there ever be a reason to have multiple server connection channels defined for MQ connectivity from the same application? Assume that there are no exceptionally large messages, and that the application randomizes between more than one channel. I'm trying to isolate whether this is a relic from earlier MQ releases, or is still adding value to the MQ architecture.
I can understand the reasons for dedicating a SVRCONN channel for different apps.
Thanks,
_________________
Andrew Watson
L.L. Bean, Inc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
If it is a leftover you might want to check the max msg size on the different channels.
We had the call on an old qmgr where there were multiple channels from 1 qmgr to the other. Priority and everything seemed the same. The only differences were the aliases and the max msg size on the channels....(tiny, very low and low < 1MB).
Why they had set that limit on the channels beats me....but then I wasn't in their shoes when they built it x many years ago...
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
Are you taling about MQI (mqclient) channels?
You *might* have multiple MQI channels from an MQ client application to a qmgr since you can only have 1 MQI verb running at a time on a MQI channel. If one channel is waiting on an MQGET, the other channel can do MQPUTs.
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| wschutz wrote: |
| Are you taling about MQI (mqclient) channels? (If so, there is no max message size on those). |
Then why do both SVRCONN and CLNTCONN channels take maxmsgln attributes... 
| wschutz wrote: |
| If one channel is waiting on an MQGET, the other channel can do MQPUTs. |
Hrmmm. Clever! 
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
(Jeff...you're right, comment about max msg len redacted )
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| wschutz wrote: |
| If one channel is waiting on an MQGET, the other channel can do MQPUTs. |
Wouldn't 2 instances using the same definition do for that ?
Is there a specific reason to separate gets from puts ? On different channels instead of different instances of the same channel ?
Enjoy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
See here for why you would want more than one SVRCONN defined:
http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22760&highlight=channels
And fjb_saper is correct. You can have one SVRCONN channel defined for App # 1, like APP1.SVRCONN. App1 can then create 2 QM objects, both using APP1.SCRCONN. I instance can be used for get with waits, the other can be used for PUTs.
If App # 2 comes along, I would be inclined to give it its own SVRCONN channel, caled APP2.SVRCONN, vor reasons mentioned in the above link.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
| Quote: |
Wouldn't 2 instances using the same definition do for that ?
Is there a specific reason to separate gets from puts ? On different channels instead of different instances of the same channel ?
|
Yes, of course. I was speaking of "channel instances", regardless of whether or not the channel "names" are the same.
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
