| Author |
Message
|
| catshout |
 Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:44 am Post subject: WMQ Server 5.3.1.8 and WMQ 7.5.0.1 interaction |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 15 May 2012
Posts: 57
|
Hi all,
we do have a given WMQ Server 5.3.1.8 installation on Tandem and want to establish a new WMQ 7.5.0.1 Server for integration purposes. Both need to exchange messages.
1. Is this possible and
2. Are there any specialities/pitfalls that we need to take care of?
Many thanks in advance
- catshout |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
1. They're completely intercommunicable.
2a. The way SSL/TLS on Tandem is a very different kettle of fish to how it's done on distributed however.
2b. If your V7.5 queue manager is Multi-Instance you're going to have a problem if you fail over.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
It is possible.
The main thing that you have to look out for is the fact that WMQ 7.5 has a lot more Security Features especially w.r.t. channels than older versions.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| catshout |
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 15 May 2012
Posts: 57
|
Many thanks, guys.
It's an inhouse communication and so far we wouldn't have any issue with SSL/security. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| catshout wrote: |
| It's an inhouse communication and so far we wouldn't have any issue with SSL/security. |
In-house or not, it should still be secured properly...
_________________
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 |
|
|
| JosephGramig |
| Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1244
Location: Gold Coast of Florida, USA
|
| exerk wrote: |
2b. If your V7.5 queue manager is Multi-Instance you're going to have a problem if you fail over. |
Just for the record, if you use something like an F5 load balancer in front of the MI Qmgr, then you can get the old Qmgr to work with MI. Not that I'm saying this should always be done, but that there is a way. In this case, the F5 is not load balancing but directing traffic to the live instance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
