| Author |
Message
|
| FPOV |
 Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: Report Fails with the reply queue |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 5
|
I have a peculiar problem.
We have some clients creating a dynamic reply queue.
Everything is working ok, except reporting.
The message from the client requests a MQRO_COA and a MQRO_COD report.
We have migrated from 5.3 on Windows 2000 to 6.0 on Windows 2000.
- I've created the domain mqm group and added it to the local mqm group.
- I've checked that the mqm group has all necessary authorities on the reply queue.
The message in the Event Log says that the attempt to put a message on the reply queue failed with reason code 2035.
The DQ header says: MQRC_NOT_AUTHORIZED
---
What is confusing here is that MQ itself should place the report on the queue and still it fails with this error.
---
The dspmqaut for the mqm group for the dynamic reply queue says it's authorized for: get, browse, put, inq, set, crt, dlt, chg, dsp, passid, passall, setid, setall and clr.
We didn't test to set the missing ones, all, alladm, allmqi
---
We also tried sending the user domain\userid as part of the message.
In this context the userid was visible in the DQ header, and the user is member of the local mqm group and in the domain mqm group.
I'm kinda stuck and its getting a bit late.
All input is appreciated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
IIRC COA and COD are put with the authorization of the user sending the message...
Somebody (Jeff) will correct me or give some more details...
Enjoy 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| IIRC COA and COD are put with the authorization of the user sending the message... |
I thought that. 
It might be worth for debugging purposes only switching on security events, so you gain a clearer idea of what's not being authorised.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| FPOV |
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 5
|
Security Events are actually enabled, but didn't give me any usefule input other than the fact that I was totallu confused.
---
However!
The problem is solved. I just had to restart the SERVER.
I should've known this ... Windows 2000 is so ancient I used diapers the last time I touched it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| FPOV wrote: |
| I should've known this ... Windows 2000 is so ancient I used diapers the last time I touched it. |
And I delierately withheld my usual anti-Windoze rant for fear of becoming repeditive!
When I touch Windoze I don't use diapers. I use big reinforced gloves and a full biohazard suit..... 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
v6 is not supported on Windows 2000.
Good job getting it to work.
Good luck keeping it running.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JosephGramig |
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1244
Location: Gold Coast of Florida, USA
|
Hmmm,
| System Requirements wrote: |
| Microsoft® Windows® 2000 Professional, Server or Advanced Server with SP4; Microsoft Windows XP Professional; Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (Standard Edition or Enterprise Edition) |
http://www-306.ibm.com/software/integration/wmq/requirements/index.html
The web site seems to contradict you my friend. No?
_________________
Joseph
Administrator - IBM WebSphere MQ (WMQ) V6.0, IBM WebSphere Message Broker (WMB) V6.1 & V6.0
Solution Designer - WMQ V6.0
Solution Developer - WMB V6.1 & V6.0, WMQ V5.3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| JosephGramig wrote: |
| The web site seems to contradict you my friend. No? |
Ehh?
I thought that not even MS supported it?
Oh. That says "Windows 2000 *Server*".
FPOV just said "Windows 2000".
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JosephGramig |
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1244
Location: Gold Coast of Florida, USA
|
| System Requirements wrote: |
| Microsoft® Windows® 2000 Professional, Server or Advanced Server with SP4 |
and a few more caveats, to be sure.
Windows support for it is some funky phase of the phase out (meaning, get off it).
_________________
Joseph
Administrator - IBM WebSphere MQ (WMQ) V6.0, IBM WebSphere Message Broker (WMB) V6.1 & V6.0
Solution Designer - WMQ V6.0
Solution Developer - WMB V6.1 & V6.0, WMQ V5.3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
IIRC COA and COD are put with the authorization of the user sending the message...
Somebody (Jeff) will correct me or give some more details...
|
The COD message is put with the authority of the original message's UserId, whereas the COA is put with the authority of the remote RCVR MCA, typically running under the ID of mqm
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramires |
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Posts: 523
Location: Portugal - Lisboa
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
The COD message is put with the authority of the original message's UserId, whereas the COA is put with the authority of the remote RCVR MCA, typically running under the ID of mqm |
I'm having this issue, a 2035 when trying to reply a COD. I'was looking in the documentation, but I didn't find this info, In which manual is it ?
Thanks!
Joao |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
I'm not all that certain that this little annomoly is documented.
It seems to make sense when you ponder it for a while: COA is recognized by the MCA, and it puts the report message to the rtq. The getting application causes the COD report message to be sent.
The 2035 in the error log (I wish they hadn't called error logs "logs") will identify which username failed.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramires |
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 24 Jun 2001
Posts: 523
Location: Portugal - Lisboa
|
Thanks, I understand the mechanism, and I see the COD report in my local dlq with an userid from the sending system, not defined in my system and I want avoid defining a new user. I'm wondering is the anomaly is documented 
Regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
