| Author |
Message
|
| sac063 |
 Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 1:05 am Post subject: Multiple QMs |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 36
|
Hi guys,
I am looking for information on the pros and cons of using a multiple QMs against a single QM.
Infrastructure remains the same i.e., the new QM if created will reside on the same server (Windows 2000, DL580 make)hosting the old one. The message broker (MS Biztalk) will now read/write to two different QMs.
If there are any guidelines that help me to make the decision... pls. share.
Thanks.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 6:04 am Post subject: Re: Multiple QMs |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| sac063 wrote: |
Hi guys,
I am looking for information on the pros and cons of using a multiple QMs against a single QM.
Infrastructure remains the same i.e., the new QM if created will reside on the same server (Windows 2000, DL580 make)hosting the old one. The message broker (MS Biztalk) will now read/write to two different QMs.
If there are any guidelines that help me to make the decision... pls. share.
Thanks.... |
Please provide more information....
ASSUMPTION: We are talking about multiple qmgrs on the same physical/logical box.
The general rule is more qmgrs on the box consume more resources...
Now in a Distributed environment (Unix/Windows) you would consider multiple qmgrs to isolate important applications from each other (different log spaces) and allow different downtimes (qmgr stopped/ bounced).
Generally speaking I have been told that on a Mainframe it is better to have only 1 qmgr. To isolate you define different queues and different channels, different page sets ...
Enjoy  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sac063 |
| Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject: Re: Multiple QMs |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 36
|
Thanks for a quick reply... 
| fjb_saper wrote: |
The general rule is more qmgrs on the box consume more resources...
|
Where do you draw the line and say, now I need to go for a different QM. Is the paramater no. of integrating apps, MQ objects or anything else. If yes then what is the boundary?
Here is the additional information you had asked for -
The production infrastructure currently has MQ server in a HA (active-passive) MSCS cluster. There is only one broker QM using these servers. My idea of using another QM is not to isolate applications, instead the same broker will be using both QMs.
Reason to propose a new QM is beacuse the broker will now receive whole new traffic from a different geographical location which I thought should be separated.
Thanks.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
The boudary is where you set it and what you are willing to trade....
| sac063 wrote: |
Reason to propose a new QM is beacuse the broker will now receive whole new traffic from a different geographical location which I thought should be separated.
|
This seems a valid reason especially if the nature and volume of the traffic is completely different. Don't forget to have your additional qmgr's logs in a different file system. This will give you better separation...
However in your scenario I see nothing wrong with having an additional channel and a few additional queues.... especially if you are in an HA scenario. Remember those trade offs...
Enjoy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sac063 |
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 36
|
OK...great. Somebody is backing me on this 
Finally, is there any guidelines published by IBM that gives me some idea about the resources consumed by a single QM against 2 separate QMs. Any pointers will be really helpful !
Thanks... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
