| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| Choosing Full Repository |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| Pats21 |
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:07 pm Post subject: Choosing Full Repository |
 |
|
Disciple
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 154
|
Hi All,
I am in a process of setting up a WMQ Cluster environment with 4 QM's.
Out of the 4, 2 are going to be used for IIB Integration Node and the other 2 as Gateway QM for this cluster environment.
I would like to know whether making the Integration Node QM as the Full Repository is a good idea or should I make the Gateway QM as Full Repository.
Do let me know.
Thanks in advance.
Pats ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9469
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
Ideally, FR's should be qmgrs that are FR's only - queue managers with no applications. This way, loss of an FR does not affect applications.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Ideally, FR's should be qmgrs that are FR's only - queue managers with no applications. This way, loss of an FR does not affect applications. |
And the FR's should be made highly available (MI someone?  ) 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2014 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
FRs are highly available by the nature of having two of them to begin with. In my opinion, making FRs Multi Instance QMs, or QMs under the control of VCS, HACMP or MSCS, is overkill, adding unnecessary complexity and cost.
You will find your expirience with MQ clusters just a little more pleasurable if you have dedicated QMs for your FRs, and each of those FR QMs on their own dedciated server. It doesn't have to be a big server, or a O/S clustered server - a little virtual server will do just fine for a FR QM. Just split those 2 FR servers across different hardware and network blocks to avoid single points of failure between the 2 FRs.
If you can't have dedicated servers for your FRs, I think there is very little to be gained on have dedicated QMs for your FRs if those FR QMs are on the same servers as other QMs. Although with the advent of multiple installations of MQ on a server allowing you to have different QMs running on different versions of MQ on the same server, there is some benefit. The ability to quickly upgrade your FRs to the latest version of MQ, keeping your FRs at an MQ version that is never older than any PR in your cluster, is the primary benefit of seperate FRs on seperate servers.
FRs in a small to medium cluster have very little performance overhead.
If you can't / won't have seperate QMs/servers for your FRs, and you must put the FRs on these 4 QMs, I would vote for the gateways. Without the IIB there, those servers have a little less to do. The Gateways will need to route messages to the IIB QMs, so the Gateways will likely need to know about all the queues in the cluster, so make them the FRs since FRs know about all queues in a cluster..
But in my opinion, get 2 additional little virtual servers and make QM#5 and QM#6 your dedicated FRs. You'll be glad you did.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On
Last edited by PeterPotkay on Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pats21 |
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2014 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 154
|
Hi All,
Thanks for your amazing insights ... this will be useful.
I might not get any additional server to host the FR separately, hence would have to go with the option of having Gateway QM as FR's.
Thanks again or your inputs.
Pats ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JosephGramig |
| Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1244
Location: Gold Coast of Florida, USA
|
| I would still use separate QMs for the FRs even if they live on a machine with Applicaiton QMs. Makes it easier to move them later and more stable. Once you create the isolated FR QMs, you should never need to touch them again except to apply maintenance. |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
