| Author |
Message
|
| JYama |
 Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:33 am Post subject: Migration to WMBv6.x from MQSIv2.02 |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 281
|
Hello experts,
I'm planning to migrate old MQSIv2.02 to WMBv6.x on AIX.
Is there anybody who experienced it?
One of my problems is that I have NEON nodes with user exits.
I have no idea how I can complete this because I can't find any useful information on WMB migration from v2.0x to v6.x.
Since straight migration to v6.x from v2.0x is not officially supported, I guess I need to migrate v2.0x to v2.1 first, then, to v6.x.
Are there considerations I need to complete this?
Do I need to contact SYBASE?
Any ideas?
Many thanks in advance, 
Regards, |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:43 am Post subject: Re: Migration to WMBv6.x from MQSIv2.02 |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| JYama wrote: |
| I'm planning to migrate old MQSIv2.02 to WMBv6.x on AIX. |
That's old
| JYama wrote: |
Is there anybody who experienced it?
|
I did MQSIv2.1 to WMBv6 without issues.
| JYama wrote: |
One of my problems is that I have NEON nodes with user exits.
|
But I didn't have NEON!!! 
| JYama wrote: |
I have no idea how I can complete this because I can't find any useful information on WMB migration from v2.0x to v6.x.
|
I imagine there's not much on migrating NEON, which was depreciated under MQSIv2.1
| JYama wrote: |
Since straight migration to v6.x from v2.0x is not officially supported, I guess I need to migrate v2.0x to v2.1 first, then, to v6.x.
|
Everything except the NEON should go straight; v2.0 is not that different to v2.1. Though I stand to be corrected there. I mean, v2.0??
| JYama wrote: |
| Do I need to contact SYBASE? |
Why?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqmatt |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 1213
Location: Hursley, UK
|
Wow.
The official line from IBM would be to recommend an services engagement, or something similar.
Technically it may work straight from v2.0.2 to v6, though I doubt it's been tested.
It might be worthwhile migrating via v2.1 (now I didn't think I'd ever ever say that again.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqmatt wrote: |
| It might be worthwhile migrating via v2.1 (now I didn't think I'd ever ever say that again.) |
Advocating the use of v2.1? Blasphemy! Blasphemy! 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
An even better idea is to redesign everything, and build it fresh in v6, rather than trying to migrate at all.
You've likely had significant changes in business needs since these flows were originally built.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bill.Matthews |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 232
Location: IBM (Retired)
|
And - you cannot migrate to 6.1 from that old of a release.
_________________
Bill Matthews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JYama |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 281
|
Thank you very much for your comments, all.
| jefflowrey wrote: |
| An even better idea is to redesign everything, and build it fresh in v6, rather than trying to migrate at all. |
Absolutely I agree with you.
'Redesigning' is worthwhile, in terms of license cost, future maintenance, and product support. But I'm not its decision maker, it's up to my client.
NEON stuff including user exists is really bothering. 
| Bill.Matthews wrote: |
| And - you cannot migrate to 6.1 from that old of a release. |
Well, I was actually imaging that,,, are you familiar with brand-new v6.1?
Is there still a release with Rules&Formatter and NEON GUIs? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bill.Matthews |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 232
Location: IBM (Retired)
|
| JYama wrote: |
T
Is there still a release with Rules&Formatter and NEON GUIs? |
Have you read the 6.1 announcement letter? Thats the best place to get an answer to a question like this.
In terms of your other question, you will have to draw your own conclusions.
After all, the product is not yet released ..  ..
Cheers
Bill
_________________
Bill Matthews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JYama |
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 281
|
| Bill.Matthews wrote: |
Have you read the 6.1 announcement letter? Thats the best place to get an answer to a question like this.
In terms of your other question, you will have to draw your own conclusions.
|
Thanks.
Well, then, since there are a lot of questions, I need to contact IBM.
For example, I'm not sure about migration path whether v2.02->v2.1->v6.0->v6.1 is correct, how many times I need to re-compile user exits used within NEON stuff, and whether such old medias are still available. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| JYama wrote: |
| I'm not sure about migration path whether v2.02->v2.1->v6.0->v6.1 is correct, how many times I need to re-compile user exits used within NEON stuff, and whether such old medias are still available. |
I gave my v2.1 media a good burial 
Well, actually I burned it while dancing round screaming "Gone! Gone at last!" but it felt really good.
Moving back to the point, I have a lot of trouble seeing how a migration path involving v2.1 is a good idea. I accept your point about the client's decision, but they've engaged you to perform the task and it's valid you provide input to the process. If they've sat on this ancient, unsupported software for this length of time they must accept there's no safe, supported migration route off and the least business risk is to redesign in v6 as jefflowrey has suggested.
Even going via v2.1, that NEON stuff is going to cause problems. v2.1 tolerates it, but treats it as a black box. It wasn't recommended for new development & IIRC (and it was a long time ago) there was a recommendation that NEON be rewritten as MRM on the first change.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JYama |
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 281
|
| Vitor wrote: |
If they've sat on this ancient, unsupported software for this length of time they must accept there's no safe, supported migration route off and the least business risk is to redesign in v6 as jefflowrey has suggested.
Even going via v2.1, that NEON stuff is going to cause problems. v2.1 tolerates it, but treats it as a black box. It wasn't recommended for new development & IIRC (and it was a long time ago) there was a recommendation that NEON be rewritten as MRM on the first change. |
Yes. Redesign has to be considered.
I think, in business perspective, the decision would be made based on the time needed to either troubleshoot problems related to NEON or redesign the architecture.
In technical perspective, redesign is must in terms of, as I mentioned, license cost, future administration and maintenance, and product support.
Last edited by JYama on Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| JYama wrote: |
| In technical perspective, redesign is must in terms of, as I mentioned, license cost, future administration and maintenance, and product support. |
All of which are no-brainers once you're on v6.
The question is how you get there. Given that v6 does not support NEON at all. So you won't be troubleshooting problems in it.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bill.Matthews |
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 232
Location: IBM (Retired)
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| JYama wrote: |
| In technical perspective, redesign is must in terms of, as I mentioned, license cost, future administration and maintenance, and product support. |
All of which are no-brainers once you're on v6.
The question is how you get there. Given that v6 does not support NEON at all. So you won't be troubleshooting problems in it. |
But, the WebSphere Message Broker with Rules and Formatter V6.0 and V6.1 are still available.
I would, however strongly support the options expressed in this discussion that the client be advised to redesign and re implement rather than attempting a migration.
The amount of NEON skills is vanishing. (and I am not sad to see them go.)
javascript:emoticon(' ')
javascript:emoticon('')
Redesign, Redesign, Redesign.
_________________
Bill Matthews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| Given that v6 does not support NEON at all. So you won't be troubleshooting problems in it. |
Alright, the basic version of v6 doesn't support NEON. But is even R & F fully compatible with such old NEON (and I never thought I'd be asking that - this thread is bringing out the impossible in the posters!)?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JYama |
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 27 Mar 2002
Posts: 281
|
Recommendation ->
Redesign and brush up the architecture to catch up recent business requirements.
Problems ->
1. Staying with NEON would require 'double' maintenance and administration because WMB and NEON is separated software and this'd result in spending huge cost. 
2. Skills required to maintain 'NEON stuff' is different.
3. Uncertainty of NEON support in the future.
I don't want to see NEON GUIs any more! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
