| Author |
Message
|
| rcp_mq |
 Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:28 am Post subject: Load-balance, Failover and No CCDT |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 133
|
I have been posting my predicament in parts and none turned out a viable solution (The suggestions were good- my developer-monster was never happy)
My problem is:
:Cluster should be transparent to application:
My solution is:
1) Connect to one queue manager whilst performing load-balancing (Clustering), Failover (Considering multi-instancing a FR in a cluster of 4 servers, 2 FR (1 FR is multiinstance...my plan) 2 PR.
:Application should not be CCDT aware: (Now, if i avoid CCDT, i will not have SSL...)
3) Pull hair and come here
Perhaps give me a experts's viable solution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Clusters are automatically transparent to applications.
Your requirement is ill-thought out or ill defined.
The first rule of MQ is that applications can only ever read messages from QLOCALs on the queue manager they are connected to.
The second rule of MQ is that all information about queue manager connectivity should be held outside of the application.
The third rule of MQ is that the ONLY kind of connections that can be load-balanced by a network load balancer or F5 or etc. are MQ CLIENT connections.
You should hire a consultant. Someone needs to spend two or three days with you and your management team reviewing, analyzing, and clarifying the BUSINESS requirements on the MQ solution and isolating those from the reviewed, clarified, and analyzed TECHNICAL requirements.
There's no reason to make an FR multi-instance. Having two separate FRs is just as useful. The only reason to make a queue manager multi-instance is to ensure that it's highly available to applications. FR functions in a queue manager are already highly available through the existance of another FR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:49 am Post subject: Re: Load-balance, Failover and No CCDT |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| rcp_mq wrote: |
| Perhaps give me a experts's viable solution? |
What's the hourly rate? 
As my most worthy associate points out, your requirements are all over the place & you seem to be cherry-picking concepts that sound like they're going to help. The result of this is you tied up in knots, either by your implementation or by the business stakeholders before they pop you on top of a big pile of firewood.
You're right - you need an expert. You've got resilence, SSL, clients, load balancing and all sorts sloshing round in here. This sounds like days of requirements gathering, sorting and high level design.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rcp_mq |
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 133
|
@mqjeff
Let me elaborate:
Method followed:
1) Application connects (READ/PUT) to QL on QMGR on MQSERVER.
2) Load-balance QMGRs by Clustering them.
3) Multi-instance QMGR to avail automatic FAILOVER.
Cluster-Transparency:
Application connects to 1 QMGR.
All 4 QMGRS are in cluster. 1 FR is Multi-instance (Others need to be made or not, TBD)
PS: You scare me when you say i SHOULD hire a consultant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Well, one of the reasons I say that you should hire a consultant is that you talk about 'load balancing queue managers with an MQCluster'.
It's not quite like that. It's mostly like that, but not quite.
Then you talk about wanting to, apparently, load balancing application connections. But you don't want to do that using the only reasonable mechanism, a CCDT.
So there's enough in what you're saying that is just far enough away from the way things actually work - and maybe it's just a language thing - that says you're better off hiring someone who can help straighten this out in person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rcp_mq |
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 133
|
We had BigIP and F5 in consideration...now we should!
I did write to my boss that we shouldln't (and can't) do w/o CCDT.
warned from scared!
Thanks a bunch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| rcp_mq wrote: |
| PS: You scare me when you say i SHOULD hire a consultant. |
I think you should as well.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| rcp_mq wrote: |
| PS: You scare me when you say i SHOULD hire a consultant. |
I think you should as well. |
Give yourself credit for recognizing the value of expert help (consultant). Other might have said "I don't need no stinking consultant!"
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
