| How many qmgrs per server ? |
| 1 makes the job |
|
41% |
[ 5 ] |
| 1 main qmgr, and a second as failover (with qmgr alias) |
|
16% |
[ 2 ] |
| As much as you need |
|
41% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 12 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| jhidalgo |
 Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:19 pm Post subject: Number of qmgrs per server |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 161
|
| Is it a good idea to have a second qmgr on a server so if something happens to the main qmgr I can create the qmgr alias and redirect all the connections to the failover while I work on fixing the main qmgr ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| MQEnthu |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 329
Location: India
|
| jhidalgo wrote: |
Is it a good idea to have a second qmgr on a server so if something happens to the main qmgr I can create the qmgr alias and redirect all the connections to the failover while I work on fixing the main qmgr ?
|
Putting them under Qmgr cluster would be better choice I think...
_________________
-----------------------------------------------
It is good to remember the past,
but don't let past capture your future |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Gaya3 |
| Posted: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 2493
Location: Boston, US
|
you have to go through the Docs,
how can you say "As much as you can" are you taking the Resources as granted or what?
Be practical, go through IBM PDF's , cluster management etc etc
_________________
Regards
Gayathri
-----------------------------------------------
Do Something Before you Die |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| MQEnthu wrote: |
| Putting them under Qmgr cluster would be better choice I think... |
Queue manager clusters are not suitible for failover. We keep talking about this.... 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:25 am Post subject: Re: Number of qmgrs per server |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| jhidalgo wrote: |
| Is it a good idea to have a second qmgr on a server so if something happens to the main qmgr I can create the qmgr alias and redirect all the connections to the failover while I work on fixing the main qmgr ? |
That will work fine...unless it's a server failure, so what do you do then?
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MQEnthu |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 329
Location: India
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| Queue manager clusters are not suitible for failover. We keep talking about this.... |
The basic principle of failover is switch the processing to the secondary node.So what are the cons of using the cluster for failover..if already discussed, could please post the links..
_________________
-----------------------------------------------
It is good to remember the past,
but don't let past capture your future |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| MQEnthu wrote: |
| So what are the cons of using the cluster for failover..if already discussed, could please post the links.. |
It's about 50% of the posts in the Clustering section of the forum!
Simplisticly put, an HA solution has 2 identical nodes, the 2nd of which takes up the load in the event of failure. A WMQ Cluster has 2 non-identical queue managers which are load sharing. If one queue manager fails, the 2nd queue manager will not process any messages delivered to the failed queue manager but unprocessed, nor any messages tagged for delivery to it.
If you want a more comprehensive discussion, read the Clustering section, read the docs then start a new thread if needed. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| MQEnthu wrote: |
| Vitor wrote: |
| Queue manager clusters are not suitible for failover. We keep talking about this.... |
The basic principle of failover is switch the processing to the secondary node.So what are the cons of using the cluster for failover..if already discussed, could please post the links.. |
Please search the site...but in a quick answer, 'switching' the processing implies that the data (messages) will move to the failover node, which of course does not happen with queue manager clustering, which is primarily a load balancing mechanism!.
One day my master...
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MQEnthu |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 06 Oct 2008
Posts: 329
Location: India
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| Simplisticly put, an HA solution has 2 identical nodes, the 2nd of which takes up the load in the event of failure. A WMQ Cluster has 2 non-identical queue managers which are load sharing. If one queue manager fails, the 2nd queue manager will not process any messages delivered to the failed queue manager but unprocessed, nor any messages tagged for delivery to it. |
| exerk wrote: |
| Please search the site...but in a quick answer, 'switching' the processing implies that the data (messages) will move to the failover node, which of course does not happen with queue manager clustering, which is primarily a load balancing mechanism!. |
That answers my question...Thank you very much
_________________
-----------------------------------------------
It is good to remember the past,
but don't let past capture your future |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jhidalgo |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 161
|
I think this post/question is not related to clustering.
It's more about "how many qmgrs to have on a server ?", if it is better to have two qmgrs instead of only one, or if you think it is better to have more than 2 ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| jhidalgo wrote: |
| It's more about "how many qmgrs to have on a server ?", if it is better to have two qmgrs instead of only one, or if you think it is better to have more than 2 ! |
Best practice / perceived wisdom is it's better to have 1 queue manager with 100 queues than 100 queue managers with 1 queue. Or 10 queue managers with 10 queues each.
The overhead (footprint?) is in the queue manager itself. So more queues are very cheap.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kevinf2349 |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1311
Location: USA
|
It depends on what the business requirements are.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jhidalgo |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 161
|
Let's say business requirements are minimize the "time to resolve".
When it comes to problems with the qmgr (logs corrupted, damaged objects, etc..) it may help to have another qmgr with the same objects and a qmgr alias so you just start it and apps will run smootly while you recover the qmgr. Obviously this doesn't include problems with the hardware, etc... we are limited to the problems with the qmgr itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
Again: That will work fine...unless it's a server failure, so what do you do then?
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sumit |
| Posted: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 398
|
| exerk wrote: |
| Again: That will work fine...unless it's a server failure, so what do you do then? |
But the probalility of a server failure is very less as compared to a queue manager failure. Sometimes, clients want to use different queue managers on same server for their different applications. They quote them as 'critical applications'. With the justification that any problem with 1 qmgr should not effect performace of other application, one need to agree to configure multiple queue managers on same servers.
I agree with kevinf2349, it highly depends on business requirement.
_________________
Regards
Sumit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
