| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Best volume for a Queue Manager |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| nagabhb |
 Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:38 am Post subject: Best volume for a Queue Manager |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 42
|
Hi
Can any one tell me how to determine best volume for a Queue Manager to process with out any performance glitch. I know it depends on vaious factors like Message Length/Size.Persistance,how applicaiton is fetcihng messages ..etc. But under normal conditions knowing all the paramerters is there any way we can calucate the optimal volume to allow from applicaitons.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:46 am Post subject: Re: Best volume for a Queue Manager |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| nagabhb wrote: |
| But under normal conditions knowing all the paramerters is there any way we can calucate the optimal volume to allow from applicaitons. |
That's very anti-pattern. The WMQ infrastructure should exist to serve the applications. So what you should be doing is finding out what the average and peak volumes are from the applications, and sizing the queue manager accordingly. Or scaleing to multiple queue managers.
Saying to any application business owner "can you please only perform n busniess transactions in a day because that's what our queue manager is tuned for" is not a conversation likely to end well. It also impiles that if n is the optimum, then n+x is the maximum. And no business stateholder wants to get the impression the infrastructure can't support all the business activities they're certain will happen just after the next campaign.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| nagabhb |
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 42
|
Thanks for the assistance Grand. Thing here is apart from normal traffic, applicaiton folks want to publish 20k vloume additionally on a particular day. How could I detremine that is there any performance issue becasue of this additional volume or would there be any impact.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
You determine if it will cause an impact by understanding what volume your queue manager is currently tuned for.
If it will cause an impact, you then retune the queue manager (which could potentially require recreating it) to support the new volume. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| nagabhb |
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 42
|
| Yeap. My question here is how could I determine (in count) "what volume my queue manager is currently tuned for ". Is that I have to do a regression test or is there any way we caluculate this ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:33 am Post subject: Re: Best volume for a Queue Manager |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9396
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| nagabhb wrote: |
| But under normal conditions knowing all the paramerters is there any way we can calucate the optimal volume to allow from applications. |
Simply, no.
WMQ doesn't do predictive workload-to-resource balancing. Like all other applications, WMQ uses (demands) resources (disk, cpu, network, RAM). All of these are o/s resources. Allocate too little, you get a bottleneck.
Some WMQ parameters (like buffers) affect WMQs demand for virtual storage, which impacts the o/s's RAM. CPUs allocated by the o/s to WMQ workload will allow more concurrent WMQ workload or less.
Application message design (message size, frequency), and application-involved database calls, all impact throughput.
As delivered from IBM, and as documented, WMQ parameters are often adequate for small to medium workloads. To me, this means Test and QA, but not necessarily Prod.
Look at the WMQ performance documentation, enable statistics and accounting data, evaluate your workload use of resources, make adjustments that you feel will improve throughput.
In general, my experience has been that poor application design and coding are more often responsible for poor throughput (failing to meet SLA's). WMQ parameters are, generally,far less likely to be culprits.
_________________
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: Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| nagabhb wrote: |
| Is that I have to do a regression test or is there any way we caluculate this ? |
Again, that's somewhat backwards. What I'd do is to take the normal traffic, add 20k to it, calculate how the queue manager would need to be tuned to support that & compare your result to how it's actually set up.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9396
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| nagabhb wrote: |
| ...is there any way we caluculate this ? |
How do you currently calculate the best volume of Windows 7? Or Windows 2008?
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
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
|
|
|
|
