| Author |
Message
|
| Gideon |
 Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:02 pm Post subject: Inexpensive version of MQ |
 |
|
Chevalier
Joined: 18 Aug 2009
Posts: 403
|
Is there a less expensive version of WMQ ?
If so what are its product limitations in comparison to the full version of MQ ?
If not are there any reasonable alternatives that support WMQ (something other than a JMS implementation)
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:08 pm Post subject: Re: Inexpensive version of MQ |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| Gideon wrote: |
| Is there a less expensive version of WMQ ? |
No. But there are open-source, i.e. free(ish), alternatives.
| Gideon wrote: |
| If so what are its product limitations in comparison to the full version of MQ ? |
Obvious limitation No.1: The open-source maintainers are in bed, have a day job, and will respond when they are back off their 3-week holiday, maybe, if real work that has built up doesn't intrude on their hobby.
| Gideon wrote: |
| If not are there any reasonable alternatives that support WMQ (something other than a JMS implementation) |
Oh yes, of course; one of the reasonable alternatives is MS-MQ. You do run a Windows-only shop don't you?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
If your business requirements and network stability allow for it, you can use MQ Clients extensively connecting to a small number of MQ Servers. You don't always need a full Queue Manager (along with the associated license fee) on each and every application server. This can reduce the cost significantly.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Of course, MS-MQ is Windoze only, while WMQ is multi-platform.
Some shops have written their own messaging applications thinking that home-grown would be less expensive than purchased.
It has been proven over and over that home-grown never means less expensive. It might mean less capital outlay initially, but much more expensive O&M (operation and maintenance) in the long-term. Home-grown is usually a very short-sighted solution.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| raj429 |
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 04 Jul 2009
Posts: 53
|
open source choices of messaging middleware systems, including JBoss Messaging, JORAM, Apache ActiveMQ, Sun Open Message Queue, Apache Qpid and HTTPSQS...these are some I could get from google friend at first click. Even I came to know about them today only.. 
As excerk said, at the enterprise level one have to consider the product support. And I believe they are not so extensive as IBM MQ.
Many MQ client-->few MQ server is a suggestable option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| Many MQ client-->few MQ server is a suggestable option. |
Few servers with lots of clients is a possibility, but not necessarily a recommendation.
As with any decision, there are issues and cost/benefits to be evaluated. A search here will illustrate some of the challenges (weaknesses) of WMQ Client apps as compared to server-bound apps.
You need to do more research before suggesting/recommending.
An aside: in all decisions, there is a triad (triangle) with cost, quality and time as the three points. In any endeavor, you only achieve two of the three, at the expense of the third. If you/your organization is focused on saving money (cost), you do it at the sacrifice of quality or time. If you/your organization is focused on quality, it will likely cost more and/or take more time.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Many MQ client-->few MQ server is a suggestable option. |
Few servers with lots of clients is a possibility, but not necessarily a recommendation. |
In fairness, the adjective was "suggestable" not "recommendable". And it is something to throw into the mix (with the caveats mentioned further up this thread when it was suggested last by our most worthy associate).
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| An aside: in all decisions, there is a triad (triangle) with cost, quality and time as the three points. In any endeavor, you only achieve two of the three, at the expense of the third. If you/your organization is focused on saving money (cost), you do it at the sacrifice of quality or time. If you/your organization is focused on quality, it will likely cost more and/or take more time. |
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
With a highly available queue manager (HA and/or mainframe) the use of clients can work very successfully.
Occasionally you may need to use extended transactional clients (which have a license cost).
Having said that the license cost of MQ is not that high (and most large sites will get a discount). It's very unlikely to be more than a small percentage cost of any project (the man day costs are usually the largest). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| the adjective was "suggestable" not "recommendable" |
Semantics here.
It's been my experience that a suggestion from a technical person will likely be viewed as an unqualified recommendation by non-technical management.
One of my old bosses frequently used the term "viable alternative" to include things that had not yet been the subject of critical analysis. Viable implies that analysis has been done, and that the alternative is worthy of consideration on its merit.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| yupoet |
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: Inexpensive version of MQ |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 26 Nov 2008
Posts: 36
|
| Gideon wrote: |
Is there a less expensive version of WMQ ?
If so what are its product limitations in comparison to the full version of MQ ?
If not are there any reasonable alternatives that support WMQ (something other than a JMS implementation)
Thanks |
MQ Client is less expensive than full WMQ server. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2010 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
Free generally is cheaper 
However the question is - what is your data worth? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| Free generally is cheaper |
It is risky to compare the short-term cost benefits of "free" to the long-term cost.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2010 10:27 pm Post subject: Re: Inexpensive version of MQ |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| yupoet wrote: |
| MQ Client is less expensive than full WMQ server. |
The Client install is a free SupportPac, but its only usable if you have a Queue Manager to connect to. Queue Managers can only be created in a licensed Server install. The cost comes in after the 90-day trial Server license expires and you decide to buy!
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
