| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| 1 QM or multiple QMs for multiple apps |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Peter Tran |
 Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:02 pm Post subject: 1 QM or multiple QMs for multiple apps |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 14 Dec 2003
Posts: 1
Location: Sydney Australia
|
Hi There,
I have 4 different applications on one machine that exchange messages with 4 other remote applications through WMQI. Just wonder if anyone can suggest if I should use one QM for all apps on this machine, or one QM for each app (ie 4 QMs for 4 apps)?
I understand that 1 QM for all would be simpler for support but if the QM is down, all apps will be affected. On the other hand, there is a suggestion that a QM is a robust and capable beast so you don't need multiple QMs.
Thanks for you help in advance.
Peter |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
There are very few hardware systems that will let you really run separate MQSeries systems on the same box.
So, if for instance your platform is Windows, if one queue manager crashes badly, the other QMs aren't necessarily going to be protected.
In addition, each queue manager is an additional drain on system resources. So, again, there isn't much benefit from having multiple QMs.
If you want to provide failure protection for your apps, you're better off having a redundant piece of hardware than redundant QMs on the same piece of hardware. It's better for performance and for all types of administration - management, backup, etc.
If you want to isolate your apps from each other, again put them on their own hardware.
That said, there's nothing stopping you from doing things the way you suggest. It's just not what I would recommend.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bower5932 |
| Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 27 Aug 2001
Posts: 3023
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
|
| I'd go with the single queue manager over the multiple queue managers. I believe the administrative headaches of having four qmgrs would be worse than anything you might have to deal with from a hardware standpoint to get failover. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| csmith28 |
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:03 pm Post subject: I agree with the above advice |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Posts: 1196
Location: Arizona
|
but one thing you may want to do is make sure you define SDR and RCVR channels and Transmit Queues for each individual remote application regardless if they are on the same remote MQManager to prevent a dataflow bottleneck.
_________________
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackie_viv |
| Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 02 Dec 2003
Posts: 2
Location: Bangalore-India
|
As far as for tranport, it does not matter much whether you have 1 QM or 4 QM's. Using 4 Qmgrs increases the headache of managing it (ofcourse increases the IBM's revenue  ). I would prefer to go with single Qmgr with independant msg flow definitions (remote Q, TXq, channels etc) for each application. For fail over, I would prefer to use Clustering (not MQ) of the OS like MSCS or Veritas or HACMP etc and make sure that my Qmgr will never go down. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
