| Author |
Message
|
| chris boehnke |
 Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:15 pm Post subject: Multi instance broker and webservices |
 |
|
Partisan
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 369
|
Hi,
We are running MQv 7013 and MB 7001 on Linux.
MQ and Broker are configured in multi instance on 2 servers(active on one machine & standby on other server).
We have message flows which are acting as webservice hosts. I have following question when the webservice client call is made to the message broker:
Question:
How the webservice app will know on which server the MQ/ broker active instance is running to connect to as the MQ/ Broker will failover to standby instance if there is a problem with Active instance?. I know with MQ client applications we can use failover mechanism with channel table but not sure of handling the webservices.
Please throw some light on this.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
That's why for SOAP and HTTP nodes you need to add a hardware that will allow you a virtual IP and send the message to the active node. 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
A better solution would be ACTIVE-ACTIVE instead of ACTIVE-PASSIVE. Even better is active-active-active where the actives are geographically separated.
Rather than do multi-instance, do single instance three times. Then have the dynamic router fjb_saper talks about route between the active instances. Not only will you have geographic dispersion, you will also be able to handle larger loads.
You are already spending effort keeping two systems up, why have a system burn electricity and human resources when it is providing no value. Use that system that is in passive mode to add value by being an active participant in the equation.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| joebuckeye |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 365
Location: Columbus, OH
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| You are already spending effort keeping two systems up, why have a system burn electricity and human resources when it is providing no value. |
It costs more money (license costs) to have multiple systems active.
With the entire WMB stack this can be cost prohibitive for many organizations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Look at the HTTP Proxy Servlet that comes with Broker.
You may not need additional hardware. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| joebuckeye wrote: |
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| You are already spending effort keeping two systems up, why have a system burn electricity and human resources when it is providing no value. |
It costs more money (license costs) to have multiple systems active.
With the entire WMB stack this can be cost prohibitive for many organizations. |
I disagree. Two systems at half the license cost that are both active contribute a whole lot more business value than one big system with an inactive partner. You get more efficiency and bang-for-the-buck with two smaller systems working together than with two larger systems, where one just sits there and does nothing.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| Two systems at half the license cost that are both active contribute a whole lot more business value than one big system with an inactive partner. You get more efficiency and bang-for-the-buck with two smaller systems working together than with two larger systems, where one just sits there and does nothing. |
It's not always the case that the license model allows 2 smaller systems to be half the cost of 1 larger system where the 2 smaller systems must have the same power and throughput as the 1 large system
(Given that for the active/passive set up only a single license is required)
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
Very true Sir Vitor. Not everything in life will balance out to the penny, and costs are like gas prices, they just keep going up.
It also depends on the preferences of the people implementing the systems. If they prefer to be more green, they would shun to have a system that does nothing but consume electricity.
IMHO, the no-thought process of hot standby world will gradually fade away as more intelligent people put more intelligent processes in place to use resources more wisely rather than consuming a small fortune in electricity and people resources just to have something there in case.
People who really care about de-carbonization will allow their preference to influence the decisions they make. This may include a more realistic SLA on recovery or the possibility that in the event of a system failure, a hot-hot arrangement would allow continuous processing at a reduced throughput until the failed system can be returned to service.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| joebuckeye |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 365
Location: Columbus, OH
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| I disagree. Two systems at half the license cost that are both active contribute a whole lot more business value than one big system with an inactive partner. You get more efficiency and bang-for-the-buck with two smaller systems working together than with two larger systems, where one just sits there and does nothing. |
But when we started this process we already had a server (two actually, one online and one batch) that could handle all the load and potential growth.
So when we needed to get our DR solution in place it wasn't an option to replace the existing prod servers AND bring in more servers for DR (or active-active) even if they were less powerful.
I can see that having multiple active servers would be better for redundancy purposes and to have your failover built in.
But sometimes I think the people making the high level decisions here are too tied to their mainframe background and don't think in a distributed way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
Yes, thats why it will take several years for more retirements to come before we start to see momentum towards distributed processing. The whole philosophy around Service Oriented Architecture is Services that can operate without regard to locale. Doesn't matter where here is, as long as you can get there from where you are. My comments are not anti-mainframe or anti-centralized processing, as those platforms can participate as much as distributed systems can. Service orientation brings a whole new thought process that heretofore was not contemplated by the powers that be. Even US Presidents have a limit on their number of years in power. And as we see today, so do the dictators.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| chris boehnke |
| Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 369
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| That's why for SOAP and HTTP nodes you need to add a hardware that will allow you a virtual IP and send the message to the active node. |
Hi,
Sorry. It could be a dummy question:
If we use virtual IP when we call the webserice(broker) url, how can we keep in sync the active instance of MQ/ broker and webservice as both active and standy instance(MQ/ Broker) servers are up?.
Please throw some light on this.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
Take a look at these little beasts.
http://loadbalancer.org/
{Other devices are available}
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Look at the HTTP Proxy Servlet.
That comes FREE with Broker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| chris boehnke |
| Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 369
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
Look at the HTTP Proxy Servlet.
That comes FREE with Broker. |
When I look at the link, http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wmbhelp/v6r1m0/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.etools.mft.doc/ac69410_.htm
I see that we need to have WAS or Tomcat to configure the Proxy servlet. We get the SOAP requests(webservice) from external clients and we dont have WAS licensing right now to install. I am not sure whether Tomcat is an open source or need to purchase the software as well?.
If we need to buy either WAS or Tomcat software to deploy/ configure http broker proxy, it may not be the right thing for us as it will cost some money to buy these products.
If we need to buy either WAS or Tomcat software for this, I would rather go with virtual ip concept as our unix admins may configure this. In this case also I wonder how to map the active instance of MQ/ Broker to webservice client as both active and standby machines will be up and noth the MQ/ Brokers(active instance - up & standby instance - down) at the same time.
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
A load balancer 'appliance' that is external to the Broker Systems does have several advantages IMHO over the proxy servlet.
The top two are:-
- It allows you to aviod exposing the Broker System directly to the web service clients.
- The management tools in most appliances are designed to allow you direct traffic to one or both brokers easily. So when you are doing say some deploys etc you can take one broker out of the balancer do the work, test it and then bring it back into operation fairly seamlessly.
An intellegent LB will also dynamically balance traffic. If you have a sloooooowwwww operation taking place on one broker then the switching algorithms will dynamically shift the load to the other one for other requests to the same service.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
