| Author |
Message
|
| Monk |
 Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:01 pm Post subject: Whats the best way to bridge two or more clusters? |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 282
|
Hi All,
This is a MQ Clustering design question.
I have many clusters spanning accros platforms and external customers and also on mainframes...
I need to bridge many clusters.The question is should I bridge clusters using two bridge QMs or one QM.
Thanks for your replies.
_________________
Thimk |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Overlapping clusters. As per the manual.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Monk |
| Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 282
|
Poobah,
the manual has used just one queue manager for brigding.
but bridging can be done with two queue managers also , like so
[QM1->BRIDGEFORCLUSTER1<->BRIDGEFORCLUSTER2->QM2)
The objects defined in QM1 will not be visible in QM2.
and if app connected on QM2 wants to put a message on QM1, we define a alias queue in BRIDGEFORCLUSTER1 queue manager and this alias queue is in the name list ,so that QM2 can see it..and hence we have a bridge.
But this can also be done with one Queue manager.
My question is , which one is better approach.
manual does not say anything about this.
_________________
Thimk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| WMBDEV1 |
| Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sentinel
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 888
Location: UK
|
With just one bridging QM you create a single point of failure for your cluster. On the accounts I have worked this bridging QM quickly becomes the center of the MQ universe (or hub) and so an outage here can have a significant impact.
So, having 2 QMS gives you increased resilience and load sharing but may be overkill if you are only ever bridging between two clusters.
I like having two becuase its more future proof though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Monk |
| Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Posts: 282
|
ok fine..
but will both the bridge queue managers be in the in namelist..
i have only made cluster receiver channels for both bridge QMs in a namelist.
but not the queue managers themselves..
they belong to their respective clusters..
so i still have a single point of failure , even after having two bridge queue managers..
but i cannot make bridge queue managers part of both clusters..because then there is not security b/n the two clusters..
am i wrong somewhere?
_________________
Thimk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Monk wrote: |
| but will both the bridge queue managers be in the in namelist.. |
Cluster names will be in the namelist
| Monk wrote: |
i have only made cluster receiver channels for both bridge QMs in a namelist.
but not the queue managers themselves..
they belong to their respective clusters.. |
Queue managers participate in each cluster for which they have valid cluster channels. See above.
| Monk wrote: |
but i cannot make bridge queue managers part of both clusters..because then there is not security b/n the two clusters..
am i wrong somewhere? |
Yes. In a few places.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
A cluster is only as secure as EVERYTHING that is connected to it. The lowest individual security level is the security level of the cluster. So when bridging clusters you are potentially degrading security levels. Keep that in mind... 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| The first question to ask when bridging or overlapping clusters is "why do I still need two clusters"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
