Author |
Message
|
ravella |
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:19 am Post subject: mqsistartmsgflow |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 05 Sep 2011 Posts: 9
|
Hi,
I'm getting the following error while starting the flows in particular execution group....at the end of log it was mentioned like "try redeploying the topology using the 'complete' option " can any one help me in using the complete option???
$ mqsistartmsgflow -q GISF_INTERFACE_QUEUE_MANAGER -i 10.111.11.111 -p 1440 -b INTERFACE_BROKER -e EG4
BIP1044I: Connecting to the Configuration Manager's queue manager...
BIP1045I: Connecting to the Configuration Manager...
BIP1027I: Submitting request to the Configuration Manager to start 'GISF_INTERFACE_BROKER/EG4'...
BIP1029I: Waiting up to 60 second(s) for broker GISF_INTERFACE_BROKER to update its configuration...
BIP1022E: At least one message flow could not be started.
The following message flows were not reported as running by the time a timeout occurred: [EG4/dd, EG4/AVL_IAR_01]. The following message flows were reported as running: [].
Ensure that the broker GISF_INTERFACE_BROKER and the Configuration Manager are running and that the current user has the authority defined in the Configuration Manager to control message flows on that execution group and broker. If you suspect that the run state is not being reported correctly, try redeploying the topology using the 'complete' option. If the problem persists, contact your IBM support representative. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
muthum_2000 |
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Voyager
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 85
|
From your error message, one of the flow could not get started due to Timeout error.
Try starting the message flows with '-w' option and set the timeout interval to 100 secs instead of default 60secs |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lancelotlinc |
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 Posts: 4941 Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
It would help for you to specify the runtime level of your Broker runtime, the platform the Broker is running on, and the version of your toolkit. There are significant differences between v6 and v7. _________________ http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lancelotlinc |
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 Posts: 4941 Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
muthum_2000 wrote: |
From your error message, one of the flow could not get started due to Timeout error.
Try starting the message flows with '-w' option and set the timeout interval to 100 secs instead of default 60secs |
Some message flows can take up to twenty minutes to deploy. -w 100 secs may not be enough to start the message flow, if the deploy takes longer, it is an indication that starting may take longer also. _________________ http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
paintpot |
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Sep 2005 Posts: 112 Location: UK
|
Quote: |
Some message flows can take up to twenty minutes to deploy |
Try not to create too many of these!
I normally go for around 2 mins. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lancelotlinc |
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 Posts: 4941 Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
paintpot wrote: |
Quote: |
Some message flows can take up to twenty minutes to deploy |
Try not to create too many of these!
I normally go for around 2 mins. |
Oi vey! From your lips to G#d's ears. _________________ http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mqjeff |
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008 Posts: 17447
|
lancelotlinc wrote: |
paintpot wrote: |
Quote: |
Some message flows can take up to twenty minutes to deploy |
Try not to create too many of these!
I normally go for around 2 mins. |
Oi vey! From your lips to G#d's ears. |
so how much of that deploy time is taken up by singletons being populated during java object constructors?
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lancelotlinc |
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010 Posts: 4941 Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
mqjeff wrote: |
lancelotlinc wrote: |
paintpot wrote: |
Quote: |
Some message flows can take up to twenty minutes to deploy |
Try not to create too many of these!
I normally go for around 2 mins. |
Oi vey! From your lips to G#d's ears. |
so how much of that deploy time is taken up by singletons being populated during java object constructors?
 |
When using a Singleton, the initial invocation is on the first message. I avoid putting any code in JCN constructors. The previous client's environment was z/OS. I will try real hard to avoid reigniting the discussion on z/OS performance. _________________ http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
smdavies99 |
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003 Posts: 6076 Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
lancelotlinc wrote: |
When using a Singleton, the initial invocation is on the first message. I avoid putting any code in JCN constructors. The previous client's environment was z/OS. I will try real hard to avoid reigniting the discussion on z/OS performance. |
I can't wait for the next big event
z/OS Performance vs Java Singletons
Popcorn anyone? _________________ 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 |
|
 |
Vitor |
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 26093 Location: Texas, USA
|
smdavies99 wrote: |
Popcorn anyone? |
Better get some steaks, some burgers & some shrimps; the last one got heated... _________________ Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|