| Author |
Message
|
| queuetip |
 Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 am Post subject: Make Sense To Use MQSeries For FTP? |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 67
|
Obviously, MQSeries is designed on the concept of messaging. However, would there ever be case where MQSeries could be used to handle FTP? Would it make sense? Would it be feasible?
Thanks,
Mike
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
FTP is a completely different protocol.
It would never make sense to implement FTP on top of MQ, just like it would never make sense to implement HTTP on top of MQ.
File Transfer, on the other hand, is a completely different thing than "FTP". FTP is the Protocol, and File Transfer is the "business logic".
It can entirely make sense to use MQ as a transport protocol for File Transfer, in the same way that it can entirely make sense to use MQ as a transport protocol for Web Services.
Using MQ as a transport for File Transfer has also been extensively discussed here.
Happy Searching!
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tleichen |
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 663
Location: Center of the USA
|
For a while, IBM had something called mqftp.... I think they scrapped it. 
_________________
IBM Certified MQSeries Specialist
IBM Certified MQSeries Developer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| queuetip |
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 67
|
The FTP vs. file transfer point is understood...thanks...and I did my research on this site. Here is what I found...
2) I saw you can "write your own application" but file transfer is a complicated process that has a lot of non-functional requirements that must be addresssed.
3) I saw there is a pre-supplied tool with MQ V6 that will stream a file over MQ and reconstruct it as a file on the other side...but comments that say it is not enterprise ready.
4) I saw there was WebSphere Partner Gateway - but that's outside of MQ product as well.
BOTTOM LINE
This leads me to conclude that MQ does not have any enterprise file transfer capabilities - even within V6.0. Furthermore, I don't see a viable enterprise file transfer product readily available that uses MQSeries as it's backbone. Unless I missed something. Do you agree?
Thanks!
Mike
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| wschutz |
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Posts: 3316
Location: IBM (retired)
|
afaik,. pm4data IS supported on zOS ....
_________________
-wayne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| wschutz wrote: |
| afaik,. pm4data IS supported on zOS .... |
Last I heard from the Horse's mouth, yes.
The real question is "how important is the transport?".
Is it really a necessary requirement for "file transfer", that MQ be used as the transport?
Or is it just being looked at as a convenience - that there's an existing network that could be exploited?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lex_talionis |
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Novice
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 23
Location: Austin, TX
|
| queuetip wrote: |
3) I saw there is a pre-supplied tool with MQ V6 that will stream a file over MQ and reconstruct it as a file on the other side...but comments that say it is not enterprise ready.
Thanks!
Mike
|
I think this one will be Enterprise Ready before long...it's the "Big Blue's" next step to take market share here...just like they've done with the WebSphere product line.
Lex |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| queuetip |
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 67
|
I am simply investigating if MQSeries can be used for file transfer to replace FTP within an enterprise. Some very high-level folks I work with believe it could - based upon the marketing write-up for V6. My assessment is no...but I need to be able to ground it. Part of that is getting a second opinion from the experts (don't be too humble).
Thus, I really would like to have more feedback on the post from Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:41 pm above, specifically:
* Each of the 4 options I mentioned above - specifically, is it generally, a feasible enterprise file transfer option? AND like Wayne pointed out on PM4Data, did I sum it up accurately? (I don't want to short change any solution)
* Are there any other file transfer options I overlooked? 
* Do you agree with my conclusion under "BOTTOM LINE"
With all the non-functional requirements and different ways to interact/interface with the FTP products - I would think V6 has a long way to go to be a viable file transfer solution within an enterprise.
Any other wisdom you'd like to share on the strategic direction of MQ supporting file transfer - would be gratiously welcomed as well! 
As always - thanks!
Mike
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Again, you should investigate whether your high-ups are looking for managed file transfer, regardless of the protocol, or are looking specifically for File Transfer over MQ.
If they're just looking for managed file transfer, there are a lot of solutions out there that are suitable for use within the enterprise. Most of them sell themselves as being B2B solutions, but there's usually nothing that prevents you from using the internally.
Also, I'm sure that PM4Data can't be the only MQ file transfer solution. It just happens to be the one that IBM sells.... and be a reasonably good product.
The other thing to consider is that with MQ, you should stop thinking about "files" and start thinking about "messages" instead. If you rework your business processes to produce messages instead of files, you stop having to think about file transfer (managed or unmanaged). And you make a big step towards implementing SOA.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| queuetip |
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 67
|
| Quote: |
| Again, you should investigate whether your high-ups are looking for managed file transfer, regardless of the protocol, or are looking specifically for File Transfer over MQ. |
Sorry, I though I made this clear - file transfer over MQ. In particular, they were thinking it was BUILT-IN to MQ V6.
| Quote: |
| If they're just looking for managed file transfer, there are a lot of solutions out there that are suitable for use within the enterprise. Most of them sell themselves as being B2B solutions, but there's usually nothing that prevents you from using the internally. |
I guess this tells me to look outside the MQ V6 product for file transfer...whether or not MQ is used as the transport.
| Quote: |
| Also, I'm sure that PM4Data can't be the only MQ file transfer solution. It just happens to be the one that IBM sells.... and be a reasonably good product. |
Good to know, thanks. However, this is probably outside of immediate the scope of the research. It's coming from the fact that if we ALREADY have the MQ tool, can we take full advantage of it's file transfer capabilities at the enterprise level.
| Quote: |
| The other thing to consider is that with MQ, you should stop thinking about "files" and start thinking about "messages" instead. If you rework your business processes to produce messages instead of files, you stop having to think about file transfer (managed or unmanaged). And you make a big step towards implementing SOA. |
I appreciate your thoughts, but NO - I want to talk about FILES...not messages. This post is about FILE transfer. Messages may be what happens behind the scenes but the business problem is about FILES. Sure, messages are the logical starting point for EAI. Not necessarily for ETL though! We use 100s of FILES are used for ETL integration - a small subset may be converted to messages. Understanding the effort required, coordination and full cost of revamping a business processes is usually not understood by most techs. So messaging will continue to be a slow evolution in practice. And there is a reason why file transfer products sell. I guess I got a soap box, too!
:wink: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| queuetip wrote: |
I appreciate your thoughts, but NO - I want to talk about FILES...not messages. This post is about FILE transfer. Messages may be what happens behind the scenes but the business problem is about FILES. Sure, messages are the logical starting point for EAI. Not necessarily for ETL though! We use 100s of FILES are used for ETL integration - a small subset may be converted to messages. Understanding the effort required, coordination and full cost of revamping a business processes is usually not understood by most techs. So messaging will continue to be a slow evolution in practice. And there is a reason why file transfer products sell. I guess I got a soap box, too!
 |
One of the tricks PM4DATA can do (or used to be able to do) that got a lot of people excited was it's out-of-the-box ability to turn files into messages. It allowed file based architectures to evolve (to use your term) faster than you'd expect. And with the rise of SOA there's a lot of business pressure to remove files & go to messaging (my current assignment is to replace standard FTP with messaging over MQ).
My 2 cents, delivered from my soap box. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
ETL is just another form of batch processing, and it's an extended way of using databases for application communication.
Both of these have been shown to be relatively inefficient, and lead to a very tightly coupled enterprise that is consequently very hard to change to meet new business requirements.
That said, I'm not actually trying to convince you or your bosses that messaging is the better solution.
I just wanted to make sure that I understood what your requirements were, and that they really did include MQ as a transport - rather than just managed file transfer.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
