| Author |
Message
|
| sysera |
 Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:48 am Post subject: Difference between start channel and runmqchl |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 53
|
Hello all,
I'm currently working on some system init scripts for MQSeries on Linux boxes and my question pertains to starting up channels.
Is there any difference to be considered between starting a channel in this format:
runmqsc
start channel (channelname)
end
And this one?:
runmqchl -c channelname -m queuemanager
I'm leaning towards using the runmqchl command simply because it removes runmqsc from the automated process. Any suggestions would be excellent.
Thanks guys.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I think most people trigger their channels...
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sysera |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 53
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| I think most people trigger their channels... |
This I understand, but I'm only writing init scripts for a set of MQSeries boxes that are not necessarily my own and only for testing. Setting up triggering for these systems would be more work than it's really worth as far as I can see. I believe runmqchl for each channel would be far simpler. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sebastianhirt |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 620
Location: Germany
|
The most significant difference I can see is 2 lines of code. 
Edit:
| Quote: |
Return codes
0 Command completed normally
10 Command completed with unexpected results
20 An error occurred during processing
If return codes 10 or 20 are generated, review the error log of the associated queue manager for the error messages and the @SYSTEM error log for records of problems that occur before the channel is associated with the queue manager.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
IMHO the runmqchl might be easier to work in a script, as you can catch errors easier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sysera |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 53
|
| sebastianhirt wrote: |
IMHO the runmqchl might be easier to work in a script, as you can catch errors easier |
Excellent point. Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Nigelg |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Posts: 1046
|
runmqchl is a synchronous command, i.e. it ties up the terminal it is issued on unless you also background the process.
runmqsc START CHL starts the channel without a controlling terminal. Also, if the MCATYPE is THREAD, the channel is run as a thread in amqrmppa, whereas it is not if started directly in runmqchl. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sysera |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 53
|
| Nigelg wrote: |
runmqchl is a synchronous command, i.e. it ties up the terminal it is issued on unless you also background the process.
runmqsc START CHL starts the channel without a controlling terminal. Also, if the MCATYPE is THREAD, the channel is run as a thread in amqrmppa, whereas it is not if started directly in runmqchl. |
Would it be correct to assume that any channels I need to start with the MCA defined as thread, I can run amqrmppa -m queuemanager -c channelname? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
| Quote: |
| Would it be correct to assume that any channels I need to start with the MCA defined as thread, I can run amqrmppa -m queuemanager -c channelname? |
AFAIK
NO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sysera |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 53
|
| vennela wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Would it be correct to assume that any channels I need to start with the MCA defined as thread, I can run amqrmppa -m queuemanager -c channelname? |
AFAIK
NO |
This is the output from that command at the command line.
"Usage: amqrmppa [-m QMgrName] -c ChlName." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
| Feel free to try that and let us know if it works. Ususally the amq processes should be started by the QMGR and not in stand alone mode. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 7:03 am Post subject: Re: Difference between start channel and runmqchl |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
| sysera wrote: |
Hello all,
I'm currently working on some system init scripts for MQSeries on Linux boxes and my question pertains to starting up channels.
Is there any difference to be considered between starting a channel in this format:
runmqsc
start channel (channelname)
end
And this one?:
runmqchl -c channelname -m queuemanager
I'm leaning towards using the runmqchl command simply because it removes runmqsc from the automated process. Any suggestions would be excellent.
Thanks guys. |
The other difference is that a mqsc "start channel" will go into retry. runmqchl will just end if the channel doesn't start |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
| Quote: |
| Setting up triggering for these systems would be more work than it's really worth as far as I can see. |
Why? Setting up channel triggering is easy. You already have to define the transmit queue, so why not just trigger it? Channel triggering is very easy and with the right disconnect interval set results in far less network caused channel errors.
Leaving channels running introduces risk (IMHO), especially on a test box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sysera |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 53
|
| kevinf2349 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Setting up triggering for these systems would be more work than it's really worth as far as I can see. |
Why? Setting up channel triggering is easy. You already have to define the transmit queue, so why not just trigger it? Channel triggering is very easy and with the right disconnect interval set results in far less network caused channel errors.
Leaving channels running introduces risk (IMHO), especially on a test box. |
Well the skinny of the situation is that it isn't my environment. I'm a UNIX administrator that is also in charge of MQSeries, but this system was built by people in the development world. If there are changes made to their queues, I'd rather have them deal with that. I'm more to happy than to add an init script to fire up their queues though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
We're talking about a very small, one time change to XMITQs, not developer queues.
But if somehow the XMITQ's aren't yours, then just tell the developers to trigger the channels, then you won't need a script.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
