ASG
IBM
Zystems
Cressida
Icon
Netflexity
 
  MQSeries.net
Search  Search       Tech Exchange      Education      Certifications      Library      Info Center      SupportPacs      LinkedIn  Search  Search                                                                   FAQ  FAQ   Usergroups  Usergroups
 
Register  ::  Log in Log in to check your private messages
 
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support RSS Feed - Message Broker Support

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral IBM MQ Supportsender vs server channel

Post new topicReply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
sender vs server channel View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
ivanachukapawn
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:13 pm Post subject: sender vs server channel Reply with quote

Knight

Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 556

The info center on 2 types (sender and server) channels says both are used to send messages to another queue manager and both need to be paired with a receiver channel with the same name. (and both can be used with a requester channel). What are the principle differences between sender and server channels?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PeterPotkay
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:46 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7368

The Intercommunication Manual has a good discussion on this topic. Take a look and quote any passages that you have follow up questions on.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ivanachukapawn
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:11 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Knight

Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 556

in the intercommunication manual I found
Quote:
A server channel can also initiate the communication and send messages to a
requester, but this applies only to fully qualified servers, that is server channels that
have the connection name of the partner specified in the channel definition

However, this explanation is puzzling to me for several reasons, one being that I have always specified connection name including port in sender channel definitions anyway and another being the unknown rationale for having server channels. Is it the case that in all the configurations that I've used SDR/RCVR channels I could just as well have used SVR/RCVR channels and obtained the same functionality?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mvic
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:03 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Padawan

Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 1981

With a SVR you would pair it with a RQSTR and allow the RQSTR to start the channel. Or the SVR can start the channel to the RQSTR if needed. In that case you need to define a CONNAME in the SVR channel def.

With a SDR/RCVR pairing the SDR must start the channel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AkankshA
PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand Master

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 1494
Location: Singapore

chk this

http://www.mqseries.net/manuals/intercommunication/csqzae060f.htm
_________________
Cheers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
friedl.otto
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 4:14 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Centurion

Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 116

I have a feeling the question is still unresolved:

http://www.mqseries.net/manuals/intercommunication/csqzae060f.htm

Yields:
Quote:
Sender-receiver channels

A sender in one system starts the channel so that it can send messages to the other system. The sender requests the receiver at the other end of the channel to start. The sender sends messages from its transmission queue to the receiver. The receiver puts the messages on the destination queue. Figure 5 illustrates this.


Almost verbatim from here

And:
Quote:
Server-receiver channel

This is similar to sender-receiver but applies only to fully qualified servers, that is server channels that have the connection name of the partner specified in the channel definition. Channel startup must be initiated at the server end of the link. The illustration of this is similar to the illustration in Figure 5.



Almost verbatim from here

The question did not involve RQSTR channels at all. Since they obviously
allow the 'receiving end' to initiate connections, and where the differences
between a SDR and SVR channels are more apparent (SVR does
callbacks, SDR doesn't).

The question was: what (if any), is the difference between a simple SDR
and a SVR channel (if in both cases the CONNAME is set) when the
opposite end is a simple RCVR?

So the following holds for both SDR-RCVR and SVR-RCVR channels:

1. Connections can only be initiated from the non-RCVR end
2. Messages flow from SDR/SVR to RCVR.
3. CONNAME must be populated with the details of the RCVR host.

From what I can see, the SVR channel makes little sense when the
opposite end is a simple RCVR. Only if the opposite end is a RQSTR does
it enable the receiving host to dynamically change hostname (or port),
since the CONNAME on the SVR is optional, and the RQSTR will be
initiating the connection.
_________________
Here's an idea - don't destroy semaphores unless you're certain of what you're doing! -- Vitor
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dauckKaw
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:22 am Post subject: sender vs server channel Reply with quote

Newbie

Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 2

It means you are running sender callout. Try to remove it in WHM / EXIM configuration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
exerk
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:45 am Post subject: Re: sender vs server channel Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 5700

dauckKaw wrote:
It means you are running sender callout. Try to remove it in WHM / EXIM configuration.


Can you please elaborate on what you mean by WHM/EXIM ?
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:58 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 7823
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

The primary difference between a SERVER and SENDER channel: SERVER is unattended, and therefore nobody there to issue START CHL.
_________________
I didn't know that Schrdinger had a cat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cgache
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 7:08 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Apprentice

Joined: 27 May 2013
Posts: 28
Location: Sydney, AUS

Not sure if its the correct post but it's somewhat related and hoping someone can help me out.

I have a server-requester pair, both have con name fields populated. When the server channel is initiated by application it goes into retrying state saying remote host not available but the remote host server is fine and running. The requester channel on the remote host is inactive, when i manually start the requester channel on the remote host it starts the server channel, any pointers on what is happening to make the server think the remote host is unavailable?

TIA
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
exerk
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 1:25 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 5700

cgache wrote:
I have a server-requester pair, both have con name fields populated. When the server channel is initiated by application it goes into retrying state saying remote host not available but the remote host server is fine and running. The requester channel on the remote host is inactive, when i manually start the requester channel on the remote host it starts the server channel, any pointers on what is happening to make the server think the remote host is unavailable?

TIA

Only that you should think of it as REQUESTER/SERVER, not the other way around
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 3:43 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 7823
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

A REQUESTER-SERVER channel type implies that the SERVER end will be STARTed by an inbound request from the REQUESTER end of the channel.

Think of a large batch of messages that accumulate at the REQUESTER qmgr, that need to flow to a consuming app at the SERVER, but the SERVER app wants the messages in bulk, at midnight, not dribbling in throughout the day.

This channel-pair type presumes that the decision to start the message flow from R->S will made at the REQUESTER end - through a timer or job-scheduler or some other process.
_________________
I didn't know that Schrdinger had a cat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cgache
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 3:27 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Apprentice

Joined: 27 May 2013
Posts: 28
Location: Sydney, AUS

exerk wrote:
cgache wrote:
I have a server-requester pair, both have con name fields populated. When the server channel is initiated by application it goes into retrying state saying remote host not available but the remote host server is fine and running. The requester channel on the remote host is inactive, when i manually start the requester channel on the remote host it starts the server channel, any pointers on what is happening to make the server think the remote host is unavailable?

TIA

Only that you should think of it as REQUESTER/SERVER, not the other way around


Noted, but my REQUESTER/SERVER still needs manual intervention to resolve the retrying state of the server
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cgache
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 3:35 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Apprentice

Joined: 27 May 2013
Posts: 28
Location: Sydney, AUS

bruce2359 wrote:
A REQUESTER-SERVER channel type implies that the SERVER end will be STARTed by an inbound request from the REQUESTER end of the channel.

Think of a large batch of messages that accumulate at the REQUESTER qmgr, that need to flow to a consuming app at the SERVER, but the SERVER app wants the messages in bulk, at midnight, not dribbling in throughout the day.

This channel-pair type presumes that the decision to start the message flow from R->S will made at the REQUESTER end - through a timer or job-scheduler or some other process.


Hi Bruce,

Thanks for your reply. So I guess the only way around this is to put in some process to start the Requester at a certain point during the day? Was hoping there would be a different way around it
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PeterPotkay
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 4:33 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7368

https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSFKSJ_7.5.0/com.ibm.mq.explorer.doc/e_channels.htm

Quote:
The server can also initiate the communication as long as the server knows the connection name of the partner channel.

_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Post new topicReply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral IBM MQ Supportsender vs server channel
Jump to:



You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP


Theme by Dustin Baccetti
Powered by phpBB 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Copyright MQSeries.net. All rights reserved.