| Author |
Message
|
| Satsuma |
 Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:38 am Post subject: Trigger monitor using a model queue? |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 25
Location: Finland
|
Hi all,
I've got a little problem with a default queue I've renamed (SYSTEM.DEFAULT.MODEL.QUEUE).
What I've done is that I created new default objects based on the original ones and deleted the original. Otherwise everything seems to work fine, but when I try to stop my trigger monitor it won't stop. I get a message saying:
MQOPEN(SYSTEM.DEFAULT.MODEL.QUEUE) ended with reason code 2085
I just can´t understand what my trigger monitor has to do with that default model queue. It's not used as the initiation queue..
Can anyone tell me why this SYSTEM.DEFAULT.MODEL.QUEUE is needed by trigger monitor service?
Thanks in advance! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| dgolding |
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 16 May 2001
Posts: 668
Location: Switzerland
|
| I must ask, why are you deleting the original SYSTEM.DEFAULT.MODEL.QUEUE? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Satsuma |
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 25
Location: Finland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Satsuma wrote: |
ttp://www.redbooks.ibm.com/abstracts/sg246814.html advices to delete default items  |
What it actually says is:
| Quote: |
| Objects that start with SYSTEM.DEFAULT should be carefully examined as to their usage. If you do not know why an object is there, rename it and see if the system requires having it back; if not, delete it. |
Which is not quite the same as "delete default items". I think your examination has revealed the system requires having it back, so go with the line above that:
| Quote: |
| These should all be deleted or protected prior to moving to a production environment |
My bold
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guest
|
As a general rule: don't do something unless you understand what you are doing.
This post is a good example. Yes, a manual said you could and should; but an understanding of MQ and your applications would have lead you to a different behavior and a different outcome.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The following is humor, and should be taken as such. It is NOT to be taken as a directive, suggestion or recommendation, no warranty, implied or expressed...
If you read the item that immediately follows the quote cited in this post (in the "Security in an enterprise environment" manual), another idea for a self-inflicted wound is put-inhibiting the SYSTEM.ADMIN.COMMAND.QUEUE (mid-range) or SYSTEM.COMMAND.INPUT (z/OS).
In life generally, your choices:
1. do something; then figure out what happened and why. (imagine Russian Roulette or gargling with ground-glass or juggling with sharp knives.)
2. do some research, use common sense, ask someone (who knows more than you) if they've done it, try to predict what the outcome would be. Repeat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
You forgot rinse... 
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guest
|
| Should there be a new post category here for things we definitely shouldn't do? Should it include (require) an admission as to how we found out? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Should there be a new post category here for things we definitely shouldn't do? Should it include (require) an admission as to how we found out? |
What would you call this category? "Ritual Humiliation", "Embarassing Blunders", "Please Do Not Push This Button Again"? 
There could be a poll for the most damage caused by the smallest action. Or the most ingenious.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
I think this is properly known as "War Stories".
And I've got a great one about Perl and del "" when executed from C:/windows/winnt....
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SAFraser |
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shaman
Joined: 22 Oct 2003
Posts: 742
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
|
Well, fellas, it seems to me that the original post was not asking for a fix. Rather, he was testing some approaches and got a result he couldn't explain. I think his question was "Can anyone tell me why this SYSTEM.DEFAULT.MODEL.QUEUE is needed by trigger monitor service? "
I *think* that he was doing exactly what we tell people to do.
1) Read the manual.
2) Try stuff in a test environment.
3) Analyze the result.
I, for one, cannot answer his question. I don't know why the trigger monitor cares about this system queue. I'm glad he shared his experience. I hope he won't hesitate to share future experiences.
Shirley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Presumably the trigger monitor cares about this queue because it's creating a temporary queue based on SYSTEM.DEFAULT.MODEL.QUEUE - perhaps it's doing a PCF request/reply ?
The thing that intrigues me is the talk of a "trigger monitor service".
It's not clear if he/she means that they have created an MQ service that calls runmqtrm. Or if he/she means MA7K instead. Or that he/she has done something else to create a "service" of some kind.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| SAFraser wrote: |
| 3) Analyze the result. |
And I stand by my bold in this matter.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Satsuma |
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 25
Location: Finland
|
Thanks Shirley..
What I've got here is an MQ service that calls runmqtrm.
-Sanna |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Sanna - so when you get this error, it's from MQ Explorer, and not from the trigger monitor? That is, it's a pop-up, and not written to a log file or thrown to a DLQ somewhere?
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Here comes an awful suspicion: did he use a model queue as DLQ ?? The trm usually has the DLQ open for output... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
