| Author |
Message
|
| loudcfla |
 Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:10 am Post subject: MQ 5.3 topology - no single point of failure |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 58
|
We have a SUN Solaris with MQ on one side and a mainframe Z/os MQ/CICS on the other. Right now we have simple QMGR to QMGR config, a point to point topology. Messages are fire and forget.
We have considered MQ clustering, but that seems more work load balancing and easy admin. Mgmt wants us to come up with a high availablility MQ system, i.e. if somethings fails, we can keep running.
Could someone provide a basic MQ config that would be considered high availability and "no single point of failure", perhaps I could use as a template.
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:39 am Post subject: Re: MQ 5.3 topology - no single point of failure |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
| loudcfla wrote: |
| SUN Solaris |
What HA package for SUN are you using?
- Veritas
- Sun Cluster 1.x, 2.x
- Sun Cluster 3.x
For the first 2, there is a support pac with all docs in it,
for the third you need to contact SUN... they have special MQ Agents for Sun Cluster 3.x
(do not try to use the supportpac with Sun Cluster 3.x ... )
_________________
Michael
MQSystems Facebook page |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| loudcfla |
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 05 May 2002
Posts: 58
|
I believe we will use VERITAS.
How about for the mainframe....any ideas there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I'm not a mainframe person, but what I understand is typically done is this:
Two LPARS are set up, each with a CICS region and Queue Manager.
The queue managers are set up in a Queue Sharing group, using the connection facility(?) (sysplex?).
Each LPAR can be varied on and off without affecting the other, and without affecting the processing of messages (since the queues are shared).
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JT |
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 1564
Location: Hartford, CT.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Michael Dag |
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 2607
Location: The Netherlands (Amsterdam)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| offshore |
| Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 222
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| thravi |
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 13
|
Hi Michael,
What is the difference between "VERITAS Cluster Server Agent 3.5 for WebSphere MQ" and "MC6A: Configuring WebSphere MQ for Sun Solaris with Veritas Cluster Server - Support Pac."
Thanks,
Ravi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| siliconfish |
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 12 Aug 2002
Posts: 203
Location: USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| thravi |
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 13
|
hi siliconfish
I meant to ask what are the adv / disadv in using each of them.
Thanks
Ravi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
