| Author |
Message
|
| bkiran2020 |
 Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:01 am Post subject: Performance tunning |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 243
Location: US
|
which is the better option for performance
1) If we deploy the one flow under one BROKER in different execution group
or
2) If the two broker are in clustering
If we deploy the one flow under different BROKER in different execution group
Which is the best method |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bkiran2020 |
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 243
Location: US
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| Neither. |
okay... The second method is used for the high availability of flow? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Broker provides a lot of options for high availability of a given message flow. There is an entire range of options from "more than one instance of a flow running in the same EG" to "many many copies of the flow running in many many egs in many many brokers".
But all broker flows start by reading from an endpoint - a queue, an HTTP URL, a file system path, etc. etc. etc.
So if you decide to deploy two copies of the same flow to two separate brokers or two separate execution groups, you need to take steps to consider what needs to be done to ensure that the endpoint being consumed is available to both copies of the same flow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| Broker provides a lot of options for high availability of a given message flow. |
There is a distinct difference between making a function highly available and tuning a function for best performance.
Often, a highly available resource is not operating at peak efficiency due to the overhead of making it highly available.
The OP topic is "performance tuning" but the meat of the OP first entry is related to high availability. It seems the person is confused.
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| Broker provides a lot of options for high availability of a given message flow. |
There is a distinct difference between making a function highly available and tuning a function for best performance. |
Sure, but sometimes you tune a solution for performance by making it's functions highly available. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lancelotlinc |
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 22 Mar 2010
Posts: 4941
Location: Bloomington, IL USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| Broker provides a lot of options for high availability of a given message flow. |
There is a distinct difference between making a function highly available and tuning a function for best performance. |
Sure, but sometimes you tune a solution for performance by making it's functions highly available. |
And I need not actively mention my preferred active high availability solution again. Should I?
_________________
http://leanpub.com/IIB_Tips_and_Tricks
Save $20: Coupon Code: MQSERIES_READER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| lancelotlinc wrote: |
| mqjeff wrote: |
| Broker provides a lot of options for high availability of a given message flow. |
There is a distinct difference between making a function highly available and tuning a function for best performance. |
Sure, but sometimes you tune a solution for performance by making it's functions highly available. |
And I need not actively mention my preferred active high availability solution again. Should I? |
Only if you think it would improve the performance tunning.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
