| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Client Vs Bindings |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| mangoMan |
 Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: Client Vs Bindings |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 69
|
We need to justify to the management why we should install a MQServer on an AIX box running WAS 6, instead of using client connections to a different box. We are using an MDB to read messages from a local queue and another queue to send response messages thru a remote queue. We are using a listner port on WAS to listen to the queue. MQ and WAS are running on the same box. I am not sure if WAS Websphere MQ provider can be set up with with factories and destinations that use a client connection. Even so I am leaning towards the binding mode connection. Here are the advantages of a server connection, can you help me with some more:
The bindings method is
faster,
more secure,
supports transactions
works without active listener.
less error codes to handle by the applications
channels can store and forward incase the network fails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Client Vs Bindings |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| mangoMan wrote: |
| We need to justify to the management why we should install a MQServer on an AIX box running WAS 6, instead of using client connections to a different box. We are using an MDB to read messages from a local queue and another queue to send response messages thru a remote queue. We are using a listner port on WAS to listen to the queue. MQ and WAS are running on the same box. I am not sure if WAS Websphere MQ provider can be set up with with factories and destinations that use a client connection. |
Yes, it can.
| mangoMan wrote: |
Even so I am leaning towards the binding mode connection. Here are the advantages of a server connection, can you help me with some more:
The bindings method is
faster,
more secure,
supports transactions
works without active listener.
less error codes to handle by the applications
channels can store and forward incase the network fails. |
It's not necessarily more secure.
I don't know what you mean by "active listener". If you mean "runmqslr" processes, then you can only avoid this if your queue manager doesn't use any channels to anything else. And likely that's no queue manager running in production anywhere.
Error handling logic is a bit simpler with server applications, as you know for a fact that if the queue manager is not available then there's nothing more the application can do.
You don't mean "supports transactions", you mean "supports two-phase commit or globally coordinated transactions". MQ clients can participate in transactions with JUST MQ. Server applications can participate in transactions with MQ and other things like databases all in the same transaction.
This is the usual justification for running a local copy of MQ - that you need a globally coordinated transaction from a business point of view.
BUT with WAS 6 - you have a much smarter "embedded messaging provider". Your best bet is to actually configure and use that within WAS and then bridge it to MQ for connections to everything else. Then you get scalable relocatable messaging that you don't have to pay separate licensing for.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: Re: Client Vs Bindings |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| mangoMan wrote: |
The bindings method is
faster,
|
Not always.
Sure, you will get a return code for your MQPUT to a local definition of a remote q faster than an MQPUT to a local queue on a remote server. But that's not comparing equeal things. To the first time, you have to add, the time it takes the channel to retrieve the message from the transmit q, ship it to the next QM, wait for the batch to end, and commit the message.
Sometimes, a client connection is faster.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
