| Author |
Message
|
| George Carey |
 Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:46 am Post subject: MQQQ(MQ Quickie Question) |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 500
Location: DC
|
What is the oldest/earliest version of MQ that supports as part of the base product connection lists in sdr channels.
I know for sure it is supported in MQv7.0.1 but how about earlier versions like base MQv7.0 ?
TIA,
GTC
_________________
"Truth is ... grasping the virtually unconditioned",
Bernard F. Lonergan S.J.
(from book titled "Insight" subtitled "A Study of Human Understanding") |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| There is no earlier level than 7.0.1 that supports any features that are designed and built only for use by multi-instance queue managers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| George Carey |
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:58 pm Post subject: connection list continued |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 29 Jan 2007
Posts: 500
Location: DC
|
So you would disagree with Paul than ...
| Quote: |
Yes, it is supported. A connection list can be used to connect to any remote Queue Manager, they do not have to be multi-instance or even base MQ as a previous poster mentioned. ....
Cheers,
P.
Paul G Clarke
WebSphere Messaging Clients
Hursley Park |
_________________
"Truth is ... grasping the virtually unconditioned",
Bernard F. Lonergan S.J.
(from book titled "Insight" subtitled "A Study of Human Understanding") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mvic |
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:52 pm Post subject: Re: connection list continued |
|
|
Jedi
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 2080
|
| George Carey wrote: |
| So you would disagree with Paul than ... |
Please be more precise in your question. What do you mean by "supported".. and what is your imagined architecture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rekarm01 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:20 pm Post subject: Re: MQQQ(MQ Quickie Question) |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 1415
|
| George Carey wrote: |
| What is the oldest/earliest version of MQ ... ? |
This is not a yes-or-no question.
| George Carey wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, it is supported ... |
|
So, this yes-or-no answer is likely in response to a different question.
WMQv7.0.1 documents support for a comma-separated list of names in the CHANNEL CONNAME.
WMQv7.0.0 does not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
| Maybe a MQ client v701 can connect to any level of queue manager using a connection list. Is that what Paul meant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:37 am Post subject: Re: connection list continued |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| George Carey wrote: |
| So you would disagree with Paul than ... |
I've been known to disagree with Paul on several subjects.
I'm not sure you'll find that I'm disagreeing with him here, if you read what I've said again.
| George Carey wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Yes, it is supported. |
|
I very intentionally did not redirect this conversation to the topic you are actually talking about, which is being discussed on the listserv.
However.
It is and has always been clearly and demonstratably a bad idea to try and use the same MQ channel to tallk to two different MQ queue managers, and I believe you will run into some difficulties getting support to make such an effort succeed.
This does not mean that the product won't support your attempt to do so. It's just that it will end up in what I believe is an unsupported situation.
You might as well just stick a BigIP load balancer between two queue managers as attempt what you are actually contemplating.
There are a number of other shoddy hacks that you can attempt, aside from misusing connnames, to attempt what you are contemplating.
Best of luck with your PMRs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
I see sequence number errors and / or in doubt channels in one's future if they use any sort of load balancing or primary / secondary failover of a QM to QM channel where the receiving QMs are 2 different QMs, even if the receiving QMs have the same name.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
