| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Load balancing |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Are you using load-balancing in your MQSeries Workflow-based application? |
| No, and not planning to implement it... |
|
22% |
[ 2 ] |
| No, but we are planning to implement it... |
|
44% |
[ 4 ] |
| We are implementing it right now... |
|
22% |
[ 2 ] |
| Yes, we are using it, but having issues with it... |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Yes, and it works just great! |
|
11% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 9 |
|
| Author |
Message
|
| Vladimir |
 Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2002 11:44 pm Post subject: Load balancing |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
Location: USA, CA, Bay Area
|
Hi,
I found a lot of messages going in different topics regarding WF load balancing, but I didn't find any finished design that will do actual load balancing in WF anywhere.
Let's start from the design that Venny proposed here:
http://www.mqseries.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6622&highlight=dummy
Here is a quote of that design with some minor changes:
FMC - FMCGRP - FMCSYS - FMCQM
FMC1 - FMCGRP - FMCSYS1 - FMCQM1
FMC2 - -no WF- - -no WF- - FMCQM2 - Web client
In the buildtime for the configurations FMC and FMC1 there are two UPESs defined. Their properties are as follows:
ConfigID: ...Upess:...........QueueName........ QMGRName
FMC............HWORLD .......HELLOWORLD......DUMMY
FMC1..........HWORLD .......HELLOWORLD......DUMMY
On each queue manager (FMCQM and FMCQM1) define a local non-clustered queue called HELLOWORLD.
Define QueueManager Aliases for DUMMY qmgr
On FMCQM:
define qr(DUMMY) rqname(' ') rqmname(FMCQM)
On FMCQM1:
define qr(DUMMY) rqname(' ') rqmname(FMCQM1)
--------------------------------------------------------------
My questions are (answers that we find will go under them):
1. Is it a correct design for WF load-balancing in general?
=> No answer yet
2. Do we need to share QueueManager Aliases in the cluster?
=> No
3. What exactly will be load-balanced:
3.1 Processes (CreateAndStartProcess messages from WebClient)?
=> Yes
3.2 Activity invocations (ActivityImplInvoke messags coming from Execution Servers running on FMC and FMC1)?
=> No answer yet
3.3 Execution server workload (what ES will query/update run-time DB and send messages to UPESes)?
=> No answer yet
3.4 WF Java API calls from FMC2 (will this requests be processed round-robin by FMC and FMC1 PESes)?
=> No answer yet
4. Should activities reply to FMC.FMCGRP.EXE.XML or to FMC.FMCGRP.FMCSYS.EXE.XML and FMC.FMCGRP.FMCSYS1.EXE.XML respective?
=> No answer yet
5. How Scheduling server can send ActiviyExpired messages to HELLOWORLD in the appropriate queue manager?
=> Seems like it is not possible to solve at all with this design
6. What is the use of not specifying the Fully Qualified name of a UPES at which the activities needs to be executed?
=> No answer yet
(your questions go here  )
I promise to have load-balancing desing put together at the end of this topic brief and clear if such "ideal" design exists. 
Last edited by Vladimir on Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Ratan |
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2002 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 1245
|
| Quote: |
FMC2 - FMCGRP - FMCSYS2 - FMCQM2 - Web client
|
You have workflow system too on the webclient? 
| Quote: |
1. Is it a correct design for WF load-balancing in general?
|
It is not a design for workflow load balancing. workflow load balancing is pretty straight forward. Add an addition system and it is load balancing.
I guess What we are trying to understand and acheive here is UPES load balancing.
| Quote: |
| 2. Do we need to share QueueManager Aliases in the cluster? |
No.
| Quote: |
3. What exactly will be load-balanced:
3.1 Processes (CreateAndStartProcess messages from WebClient)?
|
This is a different issue again. CreateAnd StartProcess messages from webclient are loadbalanced with the help of FMC.FMCGRP.EXE.XML. that is an alias to EXEXMLINPUTQ and is clustered.
| Quote: |
3.2 Activity invocations (ActivityImplInvoke messags coming from PESes running on FMC and FMC1)?
|
This depends on the type of load balancing you are trying to acheive. Do you want to acheive load balancing at Process level or activity level?
| Quote: |
3.3 PES workload (what PES will query/update run-time DB and send messages to UPESes)?
|
What do you mean by PES. I suspect you mean Execution Server (PES and Execution Server are two different things).
| Quote: |
4. Should activities reply to FMC.FMCGRP.EXE.XML ?
|
UPES should always reply to EXEXMLINPUTQ ( not directly).
| Quote: |
5. How Scheduling server can send ActiviyExpired messages to HELLOWORLD in the appropriate queue manager?
|
This is where the proposed design fails. There is nothing we can do to solve this issue with this design because we are basically fooling workflow by giving a Proxy QM name which points to a local QM for UPES. I believe scheduling server will try to put the message to the Proxy QM and it resolves to the local QM on the Primary system. And we are dead.
My Questions:
6. What is the use of not specifying the Fully Qualified name of a UPES at which the activities needs to be executed?
-Laze |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vladimir |
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Nov 2002
Posts: 73
Location: USA, CA, Bay Area
|
| lazeknight wrote: |
| You have workflow system too on the webclient? |
Ooops, of course not ... I've just copied this from Venny's post...
| lazeknight wrote: |
| I guess What we are trying to understand and acheive here is UPES load balancing. |
Yes, you are right. Process round-robin is not a problem, but if you have pretty complex models may want to load-balance workload on your systems. And workload is mostly created by programs execution and WF API queries.
| lazeknight wrote: |
| Quote: |
| 2. Do we need to share QueueManager Aliases in the cluster? |
No. |
Will MQ Series round-robin among all defined QM aliases that I define on the system?
| Quote: |
| CreateAnd StartProcess messages from webclient are loadbalanced with the help of FMC.FMCGRP.EXE.XML. |
Yes, I understand it. I put this question here just to make the picture complete. So, the answer is yes.
| lazeknight wrote: |
| Do you want to acheive load balancing at Process level or activity level? |
I want to achieve both (or activity level).
| lazeknight wrote: |
3.3 PES workload (what PES will query/update run-time DB and send messages to UPESes)?
What do you mean by PES. I suspect you mean Execution Server |
Yes, I meant Execution Server. Sorry, still mixing them up sometime.
| lazeknight wrote: |
| UPES should always reply to EXEXMLINPUTQ ( not directly). |
What alias to prefer: FMC.FMCGRP.EXE.XML or FMC.FMCGRP.FMCSYS.EXE.XML? Or it doesn't matter and message will go to the local EXEXMLINPUTQ always?
| lazeknight wrote: |
| ...And we are dead. |
Yes, that's why I am still looking for the better design.
Does it exist? 
| lazeknight wrote: |
| My Questions... |
I will add it and answers to the first post.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Fri Dec 13, 2002 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
I voted for
"No, and not planning to implement it..."
I am in hurry and our single system is currently being underutilized. Long way to go for us.
---
Venny |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
