| Author |
Message
|
| kishi_25 |
 Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:25 am Post subject: difference between MQ and MQ FTE |
 |
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
is MQ can't do whatever MQ FTE does?
I'm seeing the basic difference between MQ and MQ FTE are
MQ FTE provides additional features as
i) audit logs
2) scheduled transfers
3) can transfer high volume of data
so, if I don't have requirement for audit logs and scheduled transfers,
why shouldn't I use MQ instead of MQ FTE?
what other major difference features MQ FTE has that MQ doesn't?
what is the limitation that doesn't allow people to use MQ and mandate them to choose MQ FTE?
I tried to google but got results for ftp vs mq fte but not for mq vs mq fte. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9405
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
You need to read IBMs announcement letters to discover what each product does.
WMQ is a (message) transport mechanism. FTE, among other products, uses WMQ as a transport.
If you don't want to transfer files, don't use FTE.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| kishi_25 |
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
earlier people used to compare FTP VS MQ with saying MQ is reliable, secure, asynchronus etc.
FTP can does the file transfer, which was compared with MQ.
NOW FTE also does the file transfer. FTE can use MQ as transport mechanism.
But, MQ and FTE are doing same thing with little additional features on MQ FTE.
so, my question is, is there anything MQ FTE can do, which MQ can't do?
(other than auditing, schedule transfer etc)..
is it like people will use FTE for high volumes of data transfer with audit requirements & for regular data transfers use MQ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kishi_25 wrote: |
| NOW FTE also does the file transfer. FTE can use MQ as transport mechanism. |
FTE doesn't also do the file transfer; that's what it does. It's not that FTE can use MQ as a transport mechanism; that's what it uses.
| kishi_25 wrote: |
| But, MQ and FTE are doing same thing with little additional features on MQ FTE. |
That's because they're the same thing; it's not a separate product it's a different Edition of WMQ
| kishi_25 wrote: |
| so, my question is, is there anything MQ FTE can do, which MQ can't do? |
FTE can handle files directly where base MQ deals exclusively with messages. FTE can interface with Connect:Direct where base MQ cannot.
| kishi_25 wrote: |
| is it like people will use FTE for high volumes of data transfer with audit requirements & for regular data transfers use MQ? |
No, people with files will use FTE; in most installations high volumes of data equate to files because they originate in back end legacy systems devised when files were used. People with high volumes of data which can be expressed as messages will use base MQ, using one of a number of possible mechanisms to audit if necessary.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| kishi_25 wrote: |
| ...is it like people will use FTE for high volumes of data transfer with audit requirements & for regular data transfers use MQ? |
WMQ FTE (or Managed File Transfer [MFT] as it's now known) leverages existing WMQ infrastructure connectivity to transfer files. I worked at one installation where for every node that had WMQ installed on it, it also had Connect:Direct (C : D) installed; therefore, switching to use WMQ MFT instead of C : D presented a significant cost saving due to license recovery. Whether you need MFT depends on the requirement(s) for file transfer, not whether you think that WMQ (vanilla) is the same as WMQ MFT - but without the 'additional features'. I can assure you that WMQ MFT is not just vanilla WMQ with some added bells and whistles.
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kishi_25 |
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
| I agree that FTE is part of MQ. But, before FTE(as introduced only 3 or 4 years back), how was these files are being handled? is it MQ was filling this gap for certain extent and IBM identified there is a need of requirement for dedicated file transfer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| kishi_25 wrote: |
| I agree that FTE is part of MQ. But, before FTE(as introduced only 3 or 4 years back), how was these files are being handled? is it MQ was filling this gap for certain extent and IBM identified there is a need of requirement for dedicated file transfer. |
The 'files' that you keep banging on about were either transferred using an FTP solution, or it's possible that the sample File Transfer Application (FTA) that was bundled with WMQ v6.0 and v7.0 (now deprecated from v7.1) was used - I've seen at least one place that used it in anger. I assume the FTA was put in because a lot of people asked "...why can't I use WMQ to transfer files?..." and that morphed into FTE/MFT. Of course that's purely speculation on my part!
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| kishi_25 wrote: |
| But, before FTE(as introduced only 3 or 4 years back), how was these files are being handled? is it MQ was filling this gap for certain extent and IBM identified there is a need of requirement for dedicated file transfer. |
Back in the good old days there was a product called PM4Data (see here from 2006) made by a company called CommerceQuest that moved files over MQ. IBM had identified the need and had a product called (if memory serves me) Tivoli Data Mover which did the same thing as PM4Data; mostly because it was PM4Data sold under license from CQ by IBM.
I believe PM4Data survives in some form to this day. CommerceQuest became/was bought by/merged with Metastorm and subsequently I think PM4Data became MIM.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kishi_25 |
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 19 Jul 2011
Posts: 100
|
| ok..it gives more clarity now. ya..I could see PM4DATA is around still. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| @j0nnymac |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:46 am Post subject: Good info here on FTE (now MFT) |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 31 Mar 2014
Posts: 6
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5849
Location: UK
|
WMB, of course, has handled files since version 6.1
Files are to be avoided for all sorts of good reasons. They are hopelessly non-transactional and liable to cause loss or duplication of data. They are point to point, and represent a terrible old-fashioned design only fit for 1975.
If I ever see a so-called requirement for file transfer, I ignore it and find the best approach for the applications to be integrated.
Whether or not you see it written down, there is always an implicit requirement for reliabilty, transactional integrity, non-repudiation and so on.
Files cannot meet these without the massive overhead of procedures or software that attempt to overcome their inherent shortcomings.
Trying to reduce the symptoms of a rubbish architecture by "managing" the file transfer is not the right answer. Don't use files for application integration.
I think the worst example I have seen is sending the entire data (not just the changes) for an application every night to another application using thousands of files taking three hours!
_________________
Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| zpat wrote: |
I think the worst example I have seen is sending the entire data (not just the changes) for an application every night to another application using thousands of files taking three hours! |
I think I can beat that with my current project. Needless to say, I had nothing to do with the design but almost every interface to other systems is handled by FTP. I gave up counting when I got to 25 different FTP connections. Yes folks, you read it here that in 2014 almost an entire system is being integrated using Files and FTP.
I feel like I have stepped back in time to the early 1970's where large scale networks didn't exist.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
