| Author |
Message
|
| srikanthc60 |
 Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 10:40 am Post subject: distributed setup without XMITQ |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 21 Jul 2013
Posts: 79
|
Hi all,
Is it possible to create a distributed setup between Queue managers without transmission queue set to remote queue |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:16 am Post subject: Re: distributed setup without XMITQ |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| srikanthc60 wrote: |
| Is it possible to create a distributed setup between Queue managers without transmission queue set to remote queue |
Yes. The documentation describes a number of posibilities.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:47 pm Post subject: Re: distributed setup without XMITQ |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| srikanthc60 wrote: |
| Is it possible to create a distributed setup between Queue managers without transmission queue set to remote queue |
In WMQ terminology distributed queuing implies point-to-point channels (sender-receiver, server-requester, etc.) between queue managers. The presence of a sender or server channel implies a transmission queue.
What do you mean by distributed setup?
Is this a certification test question?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:30 pm Post subject: Re: distributed setup without XMITQ |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| srikanthc60 wrote: |
| Is it possible to create a distributed setup between Queue managers without transmission queue set to remote queue |
Do you mean the transmission queue does not have the same name as the remote queue manager name? Yes, this is quite common, using a xmitq name like YOURRMRTQMGR.XMITQ. There can be multiple distributed channels and transmission queues sending to a remote qmgr to allow different classes of service for transmission, eg. small msgs and large msgs, fast network, slow network.
There are design convenience factors in having the xmitq name the same as the remote qmgr name. It allows an app to directly open a queue / remote queue manager without the use of a qremote object. It also allows the qmgr to forward messages from other queue managers without needing to define a qmgr alias (eg. hub & spoke topology). This obviously has security implications....
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: distributed setup without XMITQ |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
I took this literally
| srikanthc60 wrote: |
... without transmission queue ... |
| srikanthc60 wrote: |
... without transmission queue set to remote queue |
Perhaps the OP meant without QRemote definition; but then the whole question sounded straight out of a certification exam or pre-employment test.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| srikanthc60 |
| Posted: Tue Jul 23, 2013 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 21 Jul 2013
Posts: 79
|
| Thank you glenn...It helped me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 4:12 am Post subject: Re: distributed setup without XMITQ |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| gbaddeley wrote: |
| There are design convenience factors in having the xmitq name the same as the remote qmgr name. It allows an app to directly open a queue / remote queue manager without the use of a qremote object. |
But if you have a QM Alias with the same name as the Remote QM, that resolves to whatever XMITQ name you have, apps can still send messages to the remote QM without a predefined remote q def.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gbaddeley |
| Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:30 pm Post subject: Re: distributed setup without XMITQ |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Melbourne, Australia
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| gbaddeley wrote: |
| There are design convenience factors in having the xmitq name the same as the remote qmgr name. It allows an app to directly open a queue / remote queue manager without the use of a qremote object. |
But if you have a QM Alias with the same name as the Remote QM, that resolves to whatever XMITQ name you have, apps can still send messages to the remote QM without a predefined remote q def. |
True. However, a QM alias is actually a qremote type object, so I guess my original statement still stands. 
_________________
Glenn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: distributed setup without XMITQ |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| gbaddeley wrote: |
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| gbaddeley wrote: |
| There are design convenience factors in having the xmitq name the same as the remote qmgr name. It allows an app to directly open a queue / remote queue manager without the use of a qremote object. |
But if you have a QM Alias with the same name as the Remote QM, that resolves to whatever XMITQ name you have, apps can still send messages to the remote QM without a predefined remote q def. |
True. However, a QM alias is actually a qremote type object, so I guess my original statement still stands. |
Touché.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
