| Author |
Message
|
| carlcraven |
 Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:13 am Post subject: AMQCLCHL.TAB - force ordering across queue managers |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 6
|
I have 16 web servers connecting to 4 queuemanagers using AMQCLCHL.TAB (These then connect to two seperate plexs as part of an MQ cluster).
The problem I have is......I want the web servers to use the four queue managers in different orders.
i.e. Web servers 1-4 use Queue Manager 1 (then ,2 ,3 and finally 4)
on Web servers 5-8 use Queuemanager 2 (then 3,4 and finally 1)
etc...
I have tried creating seperate AMQCLCHL.TAB files on the queue managers creating the client connections in the order required but I can see in the queue managers that during operation the web servers appear to use the connections in alphabetical order (always using Queue Manager 1).
Is there a way to force the order in which the MQ client uses queue managers in the AMQCLCHL.TAB file?
All clients and servers are MQ6.0.2.3
Cheers
Carl |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Gaya3 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 2493
Location: Boston, US
|
The TAB file will be the consolidated Client Connections enteries. 
and it will be in sorted order AFAIK. 
Regards
Gayathri
_________________
Regards
Gayathri
-----------------------------------------------
Do Something Before you Die |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
AFAIK it's searched in the order of the QMNAME parameter.
What you could try is naming the queue managers in the preferred order of connection, so "QMA" in each file has the connection details for QM1, or QM2, etc depending on environment. Or possibly wildcard the connections to yield the required order.
Here's a possibly helpful article on the client table:
http://hursleyonwmq.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/client-connection-wildcards/
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| carlcraven |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 6
|
hmmmm that is a bit of a bugger.
I had a lovely plan in my mind of 4 web servers going to each QMGR with circular failover through the other QMGRs in the list.
thanks for the speedy reply!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| carlcraven wrote: |
I had a lovely plan in my mind of 4 web servers going to each QMGR with circular failover through the other QMGRs in the list.
|
Still not beyond the realm - just needs a bit more organisation. This kind of client-HA solution is a good reason for using a table.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
The other thing to remember is that MQ client connections can be load-balanced at the network level.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
Client channel tables are searched by channel name order. So create 4 sets of SVRCONNs on each QM and then create 4 different channel tables.
I don't see any problem with meeting your requirement if you plan the names of the SVRCONN channels correctly, build all the CLNTCONN channels with a blank QMNAME and the apps specify ' ' on the MQCONN call.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
