| Author |
Message
|
| HenriqueS |
 Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:36 am Post subject: Two senders to One receiver |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 235
|
Hello,
Is it possible in MQ to have two different QMs, each one with its own sender (but with the same name), commmunicating to a third QM having only one receiver?
I have seen some z/OS setups like that, where a screen like this is shown:
| Code: |
LIST CHANNELS - BCMS ROW 1 OF 46
TYPE ACTION CODES, THEN PRESS ENTER. PRESS F11 TO DISPLAY CONNECTION STATUS.
1=DISPLAY 2=DEFINE LIKE 3=ALTER 4=MANAGE 5=PERFORM
6=START 7=STOP
NAME TYPE DISPOSITION STATUS
<> * RECEIVER QMGR BCMS
C00000000.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS RUN
C00000208.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS 2 RUN
C00360305.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS RUN
C00517645.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS RUN
C00997185.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS RUN
C01701201.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS RUN
C02038232.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS INACTIVE
C03323840.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS RUN
C04913711.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS INACTIVE
C06043056.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS RUN
C06271464.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS RUN
C07207996.00038166.2 RECEIVER QMGR BCMS RUN
COMMAND ===>
F1=HELP F2=SPLIT F3=EXIT F4=FILTER F5=REFRESH F7=BKWD
F8=FWD F9=SWAPNEXT F10=MESSAGES F11=STATUS F12=CANCEL
LIST CHANNELS - CURRENT STATUS - BCMS ROW 1 OF 4
TYPE ACTION CODES, THEN PRESS ENTER. PRESS F11 TO DISPLAY SAVED STATUS.
1=DISPLAY CURRENT STATUS
CHANNEL NAME CONNECTION NAME STATE
START TIME MESSAGES LAST MESSAGE TIME TYPE DISPOSITION
<> C00000208.00038166.2 RECEIVER PRIVATE BCMS
C00000208.00038166.2 200.214.134.134 RUN
2009-09-23 04.48.12 0 RECEIVER PRIVATE BCMS
C00000208.00038166.2 200.218.95.202 RUN
2009-09-21 21.18.00 93 2009-09-23 12.00.12 RECEIVER PRIVATE BCMS
******** End of list ********
COMMAND ===>
F1=HELP F2=SPLIT F3=EXIT F4=FILTER F5=REFRESH F7=BKWD
F8=FWD F9=SWAPNEXT F10=MESSAGES F11=SAVED F12=CANCEL
|
I tried to accomplish between 2 QMs laying on Linux and 1 QM hosted on Windows and started having sequencing problems. I could check the receiver channel status tough, and could see that there were 2 differnet connections coming in.
I looked the link at:
[URL]"http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wmqv6/v6r0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.mq.csqzae.doc/ic12150_.htm [/URL]
"DQM in WebSphere MQ for distributed environments" manual and found nothing about this sort of setup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:46 am Post subject: Re: Two senders to One receiver |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| HenriqueS wrote: |
Is it possible in MQ to have two different QMs, each one with its own sender (but with the same name), commmunicating to a third QM having only one receiver?
|
Yes. I've worked at a site that does exactly this.
I remain unconvinced the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages, but that's a judgement call; I can see the advantages.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| HenriqueS |
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:28 am Post subject: Re: Two senders to One receiver |
|
|
Master
Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 235
|
I tried this type of setup to actually simplify an internal integration sceario I have at my shop.
But, still, when you accomplished this, did you have any problems with sequencing? How the receiver QM keeps control of the message sequencing?
More, any idea where to find documentation on this subject?
| Vitor wrote: |
| HenriqueS wrote: |
Is it possible in MQ to have two different QMs, each one with its own sender (but with the same name), commmunicating to a third QM having only one receiver?
|
Yes. I've worked at a site that does exactly this.
I remain unconvinced the advantages of this outweigh the disadvantages, but that's a judgement call; I can see the advantages. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:37 am Post subject: Re: Two senders to One receiver |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| HenriqueS wrote: |
| I tried this type of setup to actually simplify an internal integration sceario I have at my shop. |
That was the principle reason touted at this site.
| HenriqueS wrote: |
| But, still, when you accomplished this, did you have any problems with sequencing? How the receiver QM keeps control of the message sequencing? |
The receiver QM doesn't control sequencing; the receiver MCA(s) do. We didn't have problems in normal use, but resolving channel issues was far more complex. This was one of my objections to this set up.
| HenriqueS wrote: |
| More, any idea where to find documentation on this subject? |
I've not seen this documented anywhere, and do not believe this is IBM's recommended set up. I'm ready to be corrected on either or both of these points.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mvic |
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: Two senders to One receiver |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 2080
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
Again I learn. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bill.Matthews |
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 232
Location: IBM (Retired)
|
Keep in mind that what the doc is describing is a single Receiver Channel definition - and that definition is used as a base definition to create a separate physical channel at runtime when the Sender channel makes a connection request.
Look back at the example you quoted - there are multiple receiver channels running with the same name. ...
So, yes, you can make the channels definition task easier - but you must make sure that you MQ sys ops understand how to manage these multiple channels with the same name - or be prepared to explain why a good channel was killed while a bad channel by the same name was not.
Personally, I'd go with unique channel names - those are a lot easier to explain when you get called in the middle of the night - when the above has happened.
_________________
Bill Matthews |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mvic |
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 2080
|
| Bill.Matthews wrote: |
| ... a lot easier to explain when you get called in the middle of the night - when the above has happened. |
This is the requirement most often missed by architects these days, IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Bill.Matthews wrote: |
| Personally, I'd go with unique channel names - those are a lot easier to explain when you get called in the middle of the night - when the above has happened. |
Managing this is surprisingly tricky. Even during the day time with everyone round a table.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mvic wrote: |
| Bill.Matthews wrote: |
| ... a lot easier to explain when you get called in the middle of the night - when the above has happened. |
This is the requirement most often missed by architects these days, IMHO. |
It's amazing how few architects do overnight support.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
