ASG
IBM
Zystems
Cressida
Icon
Netflexity
 
  MQSeries.net
Search  Search       Tech Exchange      Education      Certifications      Library      Info Center      SupportPacs      LinkedIn  Search  Search                                                                   FAQ  FAQ   Usergroups  Usergroups
 
Register  ::  Log in Log in to check your private messages
 
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support RSS Feed - Message Broker Support

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral DiscussionCurrently inetd for MQ listener is usful in any scenarios ?

Post new topicReply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
Currently inetd for MQ listener is usful in any scenarios ? View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
Mangesh1187
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 4:34 am Post subject: Currently inetd for MQ listener is usful in any scenarios ? Reply with quote

Centurion

Joined: 23 Mar 2013
Posts: 115

Gone through one article about MQ listener given below :

Quote:

In MQSeries 5.2 and previous releases, runmqlsr ran each inbound connection as a new thread within itself. If runmqlsr ran out of resources (memory, threads, file descriptors), then it would not accept any new connections. This massively threaded approach worked well on systems with a limited number of channels, but on very busy systems it was necessary to set up multiple listeners and balance connections across them.


The inetd daemon starts a new amqcrsta process for each inbound connection. There is no chance an amqcrsta responsible for only one channel will run out of resources, so even the busiest of queue managers requires only a single port in inetd. However, this massively unthreaded approach means that busy systems may have hundreds of amqcrsta processess, forcing administrators to increase maxuproc. Inetd has no idea when the queue manager is inactive, so it will start amqcrsta processes even when the queue manager is shut down.

WebSphere MQ 5.3 removed the listener scalability problem once and for all. Rather than running each inbound connection as a thread within itself, runmqlsr now passes connections to one of the amqrmppa channel pooling processes.



Now with the introduction of this new features of runmqlsr & amqrmppa , in current days , are there any scenarios where using inetd approach is recommended ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 5:45 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 8210
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

Why are you citing v5.2 and v5.3? Both have long been out of support.
_________________
I would tell you a UDP joke, but you might not get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 6:18 am Post subject: Re: Currently inetd for MQ listener is usful in any scenario Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 25361
Location: Ohio, USA

Mangesh1187 wrote:

Now with the introduction of this new features of runmqlsr & amqrmppa , in current days , are there any scenarios where using inetd approach is recommended ?


The introduction of runmqlsr (in the text you quote) wasn't in "current days" but many years ago. The inetd daemon has been unsupported for almost as long and I would be amazed if it worked with any current version of MQ (backwards compatibility only goes so far).

Your question is analogous to:

"With the introduction of the internal combustion engine in current days, are there any scenarios where hitching a horse to my car is recommended?"
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 6:42 am Post subject: Re: Currently inetd for MQ listener is usful in any scenario Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 8210
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

Mangesh1187 wrote:
Gone through one article about MQ listener ...


Please post the URL for this article.
_________________
I would tell you a UDP joke, but you might not get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
exerk
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 7:06 am Post subject: Re: Currently inetd for MQ listener is usful in any scenario Reply with quote

Jedi Council

Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 5961

Vitor wrote:
Your question is analogous to:

"With the introduction of the internal combustion engine in current days, are there any scenarios where hitching a horse to my car is recommended?"

At the front to pull it, or at the back so you can take it for a 'walk'?
_________________
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
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 7:51 am Post subject: Re: Currently inetd for MQ listener is usful in any scenario Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 25361
Location: Ohio, USA

exerk wrote:
Vitor wrote:
Your question is analogous to:

"With the introduction of the internal combustion engine in current days, are there any scenarios where hitching a horse to my car is recommended?"

At the front to pull it, or at the back so you can take it for a 'walk'?


I would say neither is a recommended scenario given the speed differential car / horse.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
markt
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 8:18 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Chevalier

Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 405

Quote:
I would be amazed if it worked

Stand ready to be amazed then. I would be surprised if it didn't work (for some variation of "work").

So I tried it. And it does seem to work. A very quick test got me connected to a queue manager. Though it's not recommended of course. In the not-too-distant past people used that as a way of implementing firewall-like controls, putting an intermediary between the socket and the calls to MQ. As well as providing other isolation or logging opportunities. Rather than calling amqcrsta directly, they called a program or script that in turn invoked the MQ responder.

And there are still people who have never changed because they never thought about it - I can see more than one open PMR right now where the collected configuration info suggests the customer is using inetd.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 9:09 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 25361
Location: Ohio, USA


_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 10:19 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 8210
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

I still have a client running a v5.something qmgr. I'm no longer amazed by much of anything.
_________________
I would tell you a UDP joke, but you might not get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vitor
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 10:33 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Grand High Poobah

Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 25361
Location: Ohio, USA

bruce2359 wrote:
I still have a client running a v5.something qmgr. I'm no longer amazed by much of anything.


As I speed past amazement, fly over incredulity and into previously unexplored regions of disbelief........
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 11:12 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 8210
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

Vitor wrote:
bruce2359 wrote:
I still have a client running a v5.something qmgr. I'm no longer amazed by much of anything.


As I speed past amazement, fly over incredulity and into previously unexplored regions of disbelief........

Every time I lower my expectations, others come along and meet them.
_________________
I would tell you a UDP joke, but you might not get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PaulClarke
PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 2:32 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Guardian

Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 903
Location: New Zealand

inetd and AMQCRSTA does have one advantage and that is one of separation. If, for example, you wanted to test a Channel Exit that you were uncertain about then you might prefer to test it in its own AMQCRSTA process rather than having the channel run in AMQRMPPA alongside all your other channels. The channel exit could then scribble over memory without any risk to the other channels. Of course in an ideal world everyone has a thorough test of these things in their dedicated test system, a long way away from production systems. But sometimes life is not ideal.

Cheers,
Paul.
_________________
Paul Clarke
MQGem Software
www.mqgem.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mangesh1187
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 4:30 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Centurion

Joined: 23 Mar 2013
Posts: 115

Thank you all for the clarification. Between below is the link I referred for this conversation

[url] https://hursleyonwmq.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/why-is-runmqlsr-now-the-recommended-listener-over-inetd/ [/url]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bruce2359
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 4:35 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Poobah

Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 8210
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.

Mangesh1187 wrote:
Thank you all for the clarification. Between below is the link I referred for this conversation

[url] https://hursleyonwmq.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/why-is-runmqlsr-now-the-recommended-listener-over-inetd/ [/url]

The URL is from 2007, 10+ years ago. Do you have a problem you are working to solve? Are you just curious about MQ internals?
_________________
I would tell you a UDP joke, but you might not get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mangesh1187
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 8:23 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Centurion

Joined: 23 Mar 2013
Posts: 115

Quote:
Mangesh1187 wrote:
Thank you all for the clarification. Between below is the link I referred for this conversation

[url] https://hursleyonwmq.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/why-is-runmqlsr-now-the-recommended-listener-over-inetd/ [/url]

The URL is from 2007, 10+ years ago. Do you have a problem you are working to solve? Are you just curious about MQ internals?


Just curious about MQ internals. I like to learn & hence explore more about how MQ works internally , beside my regular administration duties.

This forum is great place where I get feedback from great MQ experts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:
Post new topicReply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next Page 1 of 2

MQSeries.net Forum IndexGeneral DiscussionCurrently inetd for MQ listener is usful in any scenarios ?
Jump to:



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
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP


Theme by Dustin Baccetti
Powered by phpBB 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Copyright MQSeries.net. All rights reserved.