| Author |
Message
|
| csmith28 |
 Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:02 pm Post subject: SVCONN CHL has OPPROC agains XMITQ |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Posts: 1196
Location: Arizona
|
Is this normal? It appears to me that this SVRCONN Channel is putting messages directly to the XMITQ below.
| Code: |
AMQ8450: Display queue status details.
QUEUE(AIX.MQMGR.TO.ZOS.QX01) PID(37372)
APPLTAG(MQSeries Client for Java) TID(140663)
APPLTYPE(USER) CHANNEL(APP.SVRCONN.CL01)
CONNAME(XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX) BROWSE(NO)
INPUT(NO) INQUIRE(NO)
OUTPUT(YES) SET(NO)
USERID(mqm) |
Or is this just an instance of the application putting a message to a QRemote that is bound to this XMITQ so it only appears as though the SVRCONN channel has the XMITQ open for output?
_________________
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| hopsala |
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: SVCONN CHL has OPPROC agains XMITQ |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
| csmith28 wrote: |
| Or is this just an instance of the application putting a message to a QRemote that is bound to this XMITQ so it only appears as though the SVRCONN channel has the XMITQ open for output? |
Ya - the client appl opens a remoteq bound to that XMITQ, and in the background the SVRCONN opens the XMITQ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| csmith28 |
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 15 Jul 2003
Posts: 1196
Location: Arizona
|
Kay, thanks, I just wanted to make sure I didn't have an application putting messages directly to the XMITQ.
_________________
Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
You still might, there is no way to prove that it is correctly going thru a Remote Queue Def, or incorrectly going directly to the XMITQ.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| You still might, there is no way to prove that it is correctly going thru a Remote Queue Def, or incorrectly going directly to the XMITQ. |
Sure there is. Messages going directly to the XMITQ will cause the channel to error out and (geeze, i really need to read the manuals again) I think the message will end up on the DLQ.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
Yeah, the dead letter queue. of course, the xmitq would also be open if the mqopen specified an ObjectName and ObjectQmgrName. 
or...suppose the application made it's own XQH header. 
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| Sure there is. Messages going directly to the XMITQ will cause the channel to error out and (geeze, i really need to read the manuals again) I think the message will end up on the DLQ. |
Why read when you can try? msgs with no MQXMIT header indeed reach the local deadq with MQFB_XMIT_Q_MSG_ERROR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| hopsala wrote: |
| Why read when you can try? |
False Laziness.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Guys,
Don't forget the extreme case of putting a message to a queue that does not exist on this qmgr and is either resolved by the xmit queue or a qmgr alias (multihopping/reply to queues)...
Then yes you might be directly posting to the xmitq albeit the qmgr would translate the message into the appropriate format. So no errors on the channel.
Enjoy  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
What about the extreme extreme case when you have a "default transmission queue".
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| hopsala |
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Guardian
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
Posts: 960
|
| wschutz wrote: |
| What about the extreme extreme case when you have a "default transmission queue". |
Indeed. I'm still amazed at the fact that the DEFXMITQs don't come with some warning from the health department, or perhaps a "are you feeling lucky today?" caption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
