| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Triggering overhead for Trigger Types First and Every |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| sijtom0703 |
 Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:23 am Post subject: Triggering overhead for Trigger Types First and Every |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 84
Location: USA
|
I like to understand how Big is the overhead is Channel Triggering with EVERY compared to Application Triggering in MQ with EVERY set.
Infocenter says
| Quote: |
An example of a situation where a triggered channel fails to start is as follows:
A transmission queue is defined with a trigger type of FIRST.
A message arrives on the transmission queue, and a trigger message is produced.
The channel is started, but stops immediately because the communications to the remote system are not available.
The remote system is made available.
Another message arrives on the transmission queue.
The second message does not increase the queue depth from zero to one, so no trigger message is produced (unless the channel is in RETRY state). If this issue happens, restart the channel manually. |
I am trying to understand how good a solution if I change trigger type to EVERY compared to FIRST in XmitQ to overcome manual channel restart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:38 am Post subject: Re: Triggering overhead for Trigger Types First and Every |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Not to worry. Leave trigtype FIRST.
If you have the xmitq triggered, and the channel is in retry, the channel initiator application will continue to try to start the channel according to the retry values specified in the channel definition.
If all of the retries fail, then the channel will be STOPped; and then you will need to manually restart it.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| sijtom0703 |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 84
Location: USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sijtom0703 |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 84
Location: USA
|
| Then I think Increasing Channel Retry count would be a better option than changing Trigger type to EVERY |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Look carefully at all of the channel retry attributes. These are fairly self-explanatory, and well-documented.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
This Support Pack is one of the most helpful docs you can read if you have anything to do with MQ Channels in your professional (or personal) life.
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg24006699
Yeah, it says its only for MQ 5.3, but the basic concepts of robust MQ channels have stayed the same, so its still a valid doc.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
