| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| one or more broker |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| csongebalazs |
 Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:34 am Post subject: one or more broker |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 78
|
Hi,
I need an advice.
On a cluster (with an active and passive node) there are five (not very complicated) systems writen in WMQI 2.1. Which is the better solution in aspect of performance from the following:
1. There are five queue managers (connected with each other) with five brokers, and each system is deployed on a different broker,
2. or there is only one queue manager with one broker, and all systems are deployed on that broker (into different execution groups)?
What are the benefints and disadvantages of these alternatives?
Thanks
Balázs Csönge |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| _dave_ |
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 08 Apr 2005
Posts: 33
Location: IBM Hursley
|
Some thoughts to add to the discussion:
An execution group uses a single process, so whether you have a broker with 5 execution groups , or whether you have 5 brokers with a single execution group each, there are 5 execution group processes.
When you have a single broker handling many execution groups your administration is potentially easier. You only have the 1 queue manager to manage and the 1 broker from the control centre. However you also have an increased risk. If the admin agent process (1 per broker) has a problem, then all execution groups can potentially be affected. So by spreading your execution groups across several brokers you can reduce this risk.
I guess there might be a minimal deployment over head for the admin agent process if it is dealing with many execution groups rather than a single execution group.
You also need to conside the MQ performance of a single queue manager vs many queue managers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ashoon |
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:28 am Post subject: why do 5 brokers??? |
|
|
Master
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 235
|
A message broker is designed to run more than one flow so I would suggest that you would place all 5 on one broker as it greatly reduces the admin needed.
Also I would think that 5 queue managers and 5 brokers require alot more resources vs. 1 broker/qmgr giving you more resources for performance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
IBM states that in Actice Active clusters where one broker can fail over to a server runnning another twin broker, you should gracefully end the failed over broker as soon as in flight messages have been processed. That is because 2 brokers on 1 machine perform worse than one broker doing double the messsage volume.
So 5 on 1 server will be even worse.
I would definitly go with 1 Broker, with 5 Execution Groups. If it is only a single CPU machine, the arguement can be made that there is no benifit to use more than one EG, but I kinda like having separate EGs for distinctly different groups of sets and flows.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
