| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| MQSI 2.1 |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Vitor |
 Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:50 am Post subject: MQSI 2.1 |
 |
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Question: how many people in here still use it, and how many have a plan to upgrade off it before it goes out of support in September?
There are evangelical elements within this most useful of forums who espose the opinion that all 2.1 users should upgrade to v6 asap. While agreeing with everything they say, it's not that straightforward. There is broad agreement on my current site that they need to upgrade from this cursed, obsolete and tragic version but there is no current plan to do it. Not only is it supporting the vast majority of the day to day business activities, it would require a number of pre-req upgrades to allow it to happen, all of which require outage and risk assessment. It will happen because it must but the PTB are too scared to risk it because of the number of ducks that need to be lined up first.
This is, I suspect, the explaination of why the OS, database, etc, etc are also on back levels. Hell, even the prod queue manager is 5.2 because a slot can't be found to upgrade it "safely". 
(Though in fairness, they have taken the bold step of upgrading development queue managers to 5.3. CSD 5. Wow.) 
Am I just unlucky to find myself on a timid site, or are there others out there condemmed to use this ancient and infuriating software for the forseeable future, dreaming of the day we walk blinking into the light of v6?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| MikeC |
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 55
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
There is a supported plan to go from WMQI 2.1 to WMB 6.0. Although I agree that it's fraught with problems and issues.
In my experience, once you have 2.1 in place, it's quite stable. If you're one of the lucky ones who hasn't been punished by being forced to perform a needless upgrade just to maintain a support agreement, think yourself lucky. From my experience with both, 2.1 is just as stable and reliable as 6.0, it takes way less resources to run (particularly the design time components) and it's easier to use. There is some additional functionality with 6.0, but the minimal amount of add-ons don't justify the monumental task and risk of upgrading.
Instead of wishing you were allowed to upgrade, my advice is .. be happy that you don't have to. I'm in the middle of the upgrade right now, trying to beat the end of support date. Trust me, it's no fun.
.. Want to trade jobs? 
-Mike.
_________________
-Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Once you work with v6 a bit, you will find that it is actually vastly easier to use than 2.1.
2.1 is horrible to use.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
| Quote: |
| There is some additional functionality with 6.0, but the minimal amount of add-ons don't justify the monumental task and risk of upgrading |
Have to disagree.... java compute nodes, MQGet, Timeout nodes , versioning of flows, multiple db conns from one esql node, configmgr's on all broker platforms, linux tooling, v6 co-existance with older brokers/configmgrs, command line tools, cmp api, release of queue and database handles, better database failure support, sql handlers, broker attributes (broker name access from esql/java), SHARED variables, JMS i/o nodes, https, improved aggregation, soap 1.2 support, mime parser, overall performance improvements,....
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
This is great - I can agree with you both!
Yes, 2.1 is stable (once you've dragged it kicking and screaming to CSD 9)
Yes, 2.1 is horrible to use.
This is a shame because you use it far more than you'll upgrade it!
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| wschutz wrote: |
| Quote: |
| There is some additional functionality with 6.0, but the minimal amount of add-ons don't justify the monumental task and risk of upgrading |
Have to disagree.... java compute nodes, MQGet, Timeout nodes , versioning of flows, multiple db conns from one esql node, configmgr's on all broker platforms, linux tooling, v6 co-existance with older brokers/configmgrs, command line tools, cmp api, release of queue and database handles, better database failure support, sql handlers, broker attributes (broker name access from esql/java), SHARED variables, JMS i/o nodes, https, improved aggregation, soap 1.2 support, mime parser, overall performance improvements,.... |
Stop it - I'm drooling...... 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
The main risk I see with 2.1 these days is being unable to meet a new requirement.
The minute anyone in the enterprise says "Web Services", you have no recourse in 2.1.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
