| Author |
Message
|
| Muhammad Haider |
 Posted: Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:39 pm Post subject: Is anyone using Docker for MQ or IIB in production |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 43
|
Hi
As per IBM, Docker is supported for IIB and MQ in production. So anyone using Docker in production for IIB or MQ. Whats the reason/use cases for using Docker and hows the experience? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| joebuckeye |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 365
Location: Columbus, OH
|
We have started experimenting with Docker and IIB (and Datapower also) but that is all it is at this point, experiments.
The concept of Docker (ephemeral containers that can be blown away and a new one stood up) is pretty much the opposite of MQ (assured delivery) so we have not been looking to use MQ in a container yet and are looking into flows that don't use MQ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Docker is not necessarily for ephemeral containers. And even if you use them that way, you can configure the docker containers to mount outside disk volumes to known locations (i.e. set alternate paths to data and log directories when you create your queue manager).
Then the container can fail and restart, or get moved to another system or etc, in a manner more like traditional HA.
And you don't have to actually install MQ on a servers. You can create a container that has MQ installed in it.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
We're looking at Docker as an alternative to "traditional" HA solutions, with the disc mounted externally to the container as my most worthy associate describes. We also see it as a good way of segregating different applications with different levels of criticality (and reliability!).
The biggest impediment we have to full scale adoption is the IBM licensing model, which makes Docker (without some carefully juggling) more expensive than other virtual solutions. And we're all about the $$$$
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Docker allows you to easily, with some preconfiguration, to run more MQ instances than you are licensed for.
And easily disappear those instances during license audits...
Thus the $$$$$.
_________________
chmod -R ugo-wx / |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
The question we're pondering (and would welcome thoughts on) is that if we have (for example) a 64 core server capable of running (say) 2000 containers, we're paying PVUs for all 64 cores even if we're only running 1000 containers. Thus we're "wasting" half the PVUs even in the face of arguments like warm capacity, fast HA, elastic scaling, etc., etc. The best way seems to be to disable the cores we don't need, which is a PITA and not exactly proactive.
And we never cheat on audits. Ever. Never ever. Never. Have you seen the IBM Legal and License Compliance team? Their dorsal fins are HUGE!!!!
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| joebuckeye |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 365
Location: Columbus, OH
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
Docker is not necessarily for ephemeral containers. And even if you use them that way, you can configure the docker containers to mount outside disk volumes to known locations (i.e. set alternate paths to data and log directories when you create your queue manager).
Then the container can fail and restart, or get moved to another system or etc, in a manner more like traditional HA.
And you don't have to actually install MQ on a servers. You can create a container that has MQ installed in it. |
We know about volumes but the people who are building the Docker swarm for the entire enterprise (not just us lowly integration schlubs) were whining about the disk spec requirements of MQ and saying they are higher than what they built for the swarm. Most of our MQ flows are on a path to being replaced anyway so they are a lower priority.
| Vitor wrote: |
| The biggest impediment we have to full scale adoption is the IBM licensing model, which makes Docker (without some carefully juggling) more expensive than other virtual solutions. And we're all about the $$$$ |
This is also an issue we are running into. We may have to have our own isolated swarm to limit licensing costs but the admins don't like that idea (I don't blame them). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| souciance |
| Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disciple
Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Posts: 169
|
| Vitor wrote: |
We're looking at Docker as an alternative to "traditional" HA solutions, with the disc mounted externally to the container as my most worthy associate describes. We also see it as a good way of segregating different applications with different levels of criticality (and reliability!).
The biggest impediment we have to full scale adoption is the IBM licensing model, which makes Docker (without some carefully juggling) more expensive than other virtual solutions. And we're all about the $$$$
|
Agree completely. We have run MQ/Datapower/IIB in a POC scenario and were pleased but the entire IBM licensing model goes against the very idea of pet/cattle perspective of docker. I want to be able to create a gazillion containers if possible and only be limited by my infrastructure and not some complicated licensing model.
But sooner or later the model will need to be changed. Too many actors on the market and with docker you can't sell software like this anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
