| Author |
Message
|
| jcaron |
 Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:09 am Post subject: Pub/Sub Broker Startup on WBI Broker 5.3 CSD10 |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 30
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Simple question that I can't seem to find the answer to anywhere, please forgive me if this has been answered before.
I know the Pub/Sub broker comes with the Message Brokers on version 5.3 CSD08 and higher, but is it automatically started when the Message Broker starts or does this need to be done with a seperate command? If a seperate command is necessary, what is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| reddy_kal |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 04 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
|
Hello,
Are you talking about MQBroker???
If Yes, then the commands to start, stop and delete are...
For starting:
strmqbrk -m <QMGR>
For Stopping
endmqbrk -m <QMGR>
For Deleting:
dltmqbrk -m <QMGR>
-Reddy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcaron |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 30
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
| Thank you both for your replies... I found the strmqbrk command this morning in a script written by a consultant and I guess that's the source of my confusion. I never realized there was a difference between the message broker and the pub/sub broker. Normally I'd just issue a 'mqsistart BrokerName' to start the broker which seems to start whatever's needed for publish/subscribe because we have message flows that successfully publish to topics and clients that receive messages by being subscribed to those topics. Is there a difference between what happens when using strmqbrk and mqsistart? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| reddy_kal |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 04 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
|
Yes there is difference between Message Broker and MQBroker.
As you know MessageBroker is used for tranforming the messages.
But MQBroker is used to just route the messages to the queues.
If you don't want to transform the messages and want to send as is to multiple targets, its better to use MQBroker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Okay, if you're using Message Broker or Event Broker, then you do not need, and should not use the Pub/Sub broker that comes with MQ in CSD8 or later.
Repeat, do not use strmqbrk on the same machine as Message Broker.
It won't work, and might cause problems.
You do not need to do anything other than mqsistart <broker> in order to do pub/sub with Message Broker. The Pub/Sub component is integral to the data flow engine processes, and is not started and stopped seperately.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jcaron |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 30
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
Jeff,
Thanks for putting the issue to rest, I finally understand 
- Jeremy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EddieA |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 28 Jun 2001
Posts: 2453
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Quote: |
| Repeat, do not use strmqbrk on the same machine as Message Broker. |
Shouldn't that be "on the same Queue Manager". I thought there was a way to incorporate both in the same network.
Cheers,
_________________
Eddie Atherton
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V7.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| EddieA wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Repeat, do not use strmqbrk on the same machine as Message Broker. |
Shouldn't that be "on the same Queue Manager". |
Well, in theory... but then again, in theory, nobody puts more than one qm on a machine...   
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
