| Author |
Message
|
| confusedmq |
 Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:54 am Post subject: Performance Monitor |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 4
|
Hi,
I have been asked to look into a performance monitoring solution at my project. The requirements are to:
1) Measure the time it takes for an application to process a message. The way this is done is quite flexible, either
i) doing it from the requesting QM side (but this is hosted by the customer, and liable to their performance issues and network issues crossing QMs) but would still be acceptable (network performance stats would be available) or
ii) acquiring the stats from our QM, from the timestamp on the inbound application queue message thru to the timestamp on the outbound reply message (but here I am concerned about the outbound msg being put directly to a remote Q definition --> XMIT Q --> channel, and not being able to capture the data)
I have been asked to look into solutions for the 1) ii) approach
2) Any solution must have minimal (if not none at all) impact on performance in the production environment
A suggestion was to implement a publish/subscribe model whereby the measurement tool would subscribe somehow to the request and reply messages, be posted copies of messages and the timestamps compared. I have little knowledge of pub/sub at the moment, and this may impact performance thereby not meeting requirement 2.
However, reading through the forum it appears that an off-the-shelf software solution may be able to satisfy the requirements infinitely easier, in which case free/minimal cost would be advantageous.
Does anyone have any suggestions as to an off-the-shelf solution that would meet requirements or other comments as to solutions? Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
If you don't use an Exit, you will not be able to capture this information without putting another queue and another program between the customer and the application in both directions.
I am not aware of any free or minimal cost exits that provide the kind of logging you are looking for - but maybe I've forgotten them.
The only off-the-shelf programs that will log the kind of information you are looking for - tracking the performance of individual messages - are those that are geared towards transaction monitoring rather than infrastructure monitoring. Most of the monitoring tool vendors have a set of products or features for doing transaction monitoring - but they are usually more expensive than the infrastructure monitoring components.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Looks to me like you are trying to track service level agreement KPIs
I am sure you will find a number of vendors that can help you in the field.
As we already use QPasa for tracking qmgr status we would in this case add QNami .. all products from MQSoftware...
In essence there is no easy solution or the vendors would not be making any money off their products...
Enjoy  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| confusedmq |
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 4
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| Looks to me like you are trying to track service level agreement KPIs |
Exactly right. Maybe I should have just said that initially! 
I will need to look into exits as suggested by jefflowrey as "putting another queue and another program between the customer and the application in both directions" would seem to go against requirement 2 (not impacting performance). It appears that no low cost packaged solutions are available.
Does anyone have any further suggestions how the requirements may be met, e.g. pub/sub (somehow!).
(Granted that fjb-saper does say "In essence there is no easy solution or the vendors would not be making any money off their products... ") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
A Pub/Sub implementation would be similar to, and have the same failings, as using something like MirrorQ to copy messages.
Essentially, you are putting in a parallel track - and hoping that the timing is reliable that way. For instance, the sender would publish a message that would get distributed to two receivers - one that did the real work and one that merely logged stuff.
But because these are so logically separated, there are various windows of possible failure that could throw the numbers off.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
If it is essential that you track SLA KPIs just bite the bullet and go with some commercial available package to do it.
It doubt that it is worth the effort of reinventing the wheel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| crossland |
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 26 Jun 2001
Posts: 248
|
We have used CommerceQuest's MQTester for MQ performance testing. It interfaces with LoadRunner, providing various reporting tools.
Tim Crossland
Solent Consultancy
Integration Solutions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
