| Author |
Message
|
| srikanth.potti |
 Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:11 am Post subject: Queue Manager Hierarchy issues |
 |
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 6
|
Hi All,
I have an issue with Queue Manager Hierarchy, i have 3 levels of Queue Managers, StoreQM's --> Co-location QM's --> Corp QM.
35 Stores are childs to each Co-lo And
all the Co-lo are childs to Corp QM.
All the channels are up and running between each other and i have added the parent QM on the childs, but still parent Queue Manager is showing as starting state in the Publish/Subscribe status.
Can any one help me to resolve the issue. I have observed that there are no Proxy subscriptions created automatically, i am not sure why that happend and there are no errors in the logs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
What version of WMQ?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| srikanth.potti |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 6
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
I assume this was migrated from an earlier version of WMQ, especially as you've posted in the Clustering forum. Have you followed the steps given here?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| srikanth.potti |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 6
|
| Hi This is not the Migration. we have done fresh setup of all the Queue Managers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20696
Location: LI,NY
|
Are all 3 levels in one happy cluster, or do you have the parent and children in one cluster ? How many clusters total? 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| srikanth.potti wrote: |
| we have done fresh setup of all the Queue Managers. |
Then why are you using heirarchies and not cluster topics?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| srikanth.potti |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 6
|
| I don't have any Cluster, its just Queue Manager Hierarchy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| srikanth.potti wrote: |
| I don't have any Cluster, its just Queue Manager Hierarchy |
I repeat my question.
Or if you prefer, why do you choose to set up a heirarchy rather than a cluster? With 35+ queue managers involved, a cluster would seem to be the logical choice
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| srikanth.potti |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 6
|
| IBM has suggested this way. so we have approached the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| srikanth.potti |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 6
|
| And also Co-locations and Corp server are the Multi Instance Queue Managers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| srikanth.potti wrote: |
| IBM has suggested this way. so we have approached the same. |
IBM with a mighty voice corporately? A member of ISSW? A contractor who claimed IBM knowledge but doesn't actually work for them?
Why did "IBM" suggest this? What about your use case makes this better than cluster topics?
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| srikanth.potti wrote: |
| And also Co-locations and Corp server are the Multi Instance Queue Managers. |
Shouldn't make a difference
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
clustered topics are a really bad idea, in this case.
It means that all stores will send all publications to all stores, where there is a matching subscription.
I'm sure that's not what's wanted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2014 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| It means that all stores will send all publications to all stores, where there is a matching subscription. |
Assuming the stores have a matching subscription, which is a big assumption.
And one of the things I'm trying to wheedle out of the OP.
I'm also trying to get a handle on why, with the number of queue managers described in the scenarion, the OP is not using a cluster to provide queue manager interconnectivity as a prelude to discussing his topology. The claim made earlier:
| srikanth.potti wrote: |
| All the channels are up and running between each other |
is a proud boast using 35+ queue managers especially if there's interconnectivity between the intermediate layers. But is critical for the set up the OP is attempting to use.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
