| Author |
Message
|
| Ross |
 Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:52 am Post subject: Clustering Question... |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 127
Location: Ireland
|
Some application programmers I support are looking to use MQ in an app. I have given them a solution of the standard Client-Server(QR)-Mainframe(QL) configuration.
They have been looking into another possibility of a similar setup, but putting the Qmgr on the Server (Windows) and the Qmgr on the Mainframe into a cluster, and having the local queues physically resident on the mainframe (No QRs). But having the MQ Clients connect to the server, and let clustering do the work/routing.
Is this cluster a better option than using the non-clustered option? Speed is the primary focus here... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Speed of what?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ross |
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 127
Location: Ireland
|
| Response time.... They will be seeing how fast this setup is, and then comparing it to using MQ Client connection to the mainframe. I'm trying to argue against an all MQ Client setup..... but response time is the main factor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:20 am Post subject: Re: Clustering Question... |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| Ross wrote: |
| Is this cluster a better option than using the non-clustered option? |
No.
You haven't given any real reasons to use clustering.
Don't get me wrong, it will work if you do cluster, but you are making it more complicated than it needs to be.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On
Last edited by PeterPotkay on Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Does your location already have the Client Attachment Facility?
If not, then the MF client option is likely more expensive than at least one distributed qmgr.
Clustering isn't going to help, except by allowing more copies of the distributed app to run simultaneously.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ross |
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 127
Location: Ireland
|
Most applications at this site use MQ Client to mainframe qmgr, with Client Attachment Faciliity.
I'm trying to get the larger applications away from this, and into standard queue manager to queue manager setup.
I am suggesting a non clustered server-mainframe setup. But they(app developers) have asked about the cluster, as they maintain this will allow the server to fail, and also reduce the need for definitions on the server.
I have stressed that maintaining the server is an easier option than setting up the cluster (Defs will take about 30 seconds!), and that cluster isn't the best option. I just wanted some other opinions on the matter, as my width of knowledge isn't as wide as most members here.....
Thanks for the replies...
Ross. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Ask the developers to show real proof.
Remind them that MQ Clustering does not provide failover protection - particularly when apps are making client connections.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| Ross wrote: |
| But they(app developers) have asked about the cluster, as they maintain this will allow the server to fail |
They are wrong. Unless they are talking about Hardware clustering and you are talking about MQ clustering.
| Ross wrote: |
| and also reduce the need for definitions on the server. |
true, but not their problem. With only 2 QMs involved, I doubt its worth it.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ross |
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 127
Location: Ireland
|
They were talking about MQ Cluster... But they had only read a book about it...
Thanks... I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing somthing. Thanks for the input. I'll stick to my plan of action...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
