| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| WF Configuration- Design issue |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| ucbus1 |
 Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2003 7:41 am Post subject: WF Configuration- Design issue |
 |
|
Knight
Joined: 30 Jan 2002
Posts: 560
|
We have WF configuration under "FMC" catereing to a praticular business need. Now another area of our Buisness wants to go for Workflow. The business need is altogether different say the first one is for "enrollment" the second one is for "claims". If you look at the "big picture" both are under the same buisness. But if you look at the functions " one gets us money" and "one strips us off money". Here are my questions
1. Do I have to use the same configuration or is it wise to create new configuration "FMC1" ? my expereince says that we need to go for "FMC1" which lets us flexibility for having different databases, diffrent security set up and users and isolate problems of old system creeping into the new system. But again, my experience is limited. So I need your suggestion.
2. Thinking that I go for "FMC1" can I configure the names for groups clcusters diffrent other than defaulted values like "FMCGRP1" and "FMCSYS1" etc. What about "FMCQM"? will it be "FMCQM1"?. One group of our organization wants to rename to them to other than FMCQM1,FMCGRP1,FMCSYS1. Is it a right proactice. If not what reason i could give them?
3. This is basically a MQSeries question. when do you go for new queue managers at application level. Suppose my old system is using "xyz" as queue manager. Given the reason I explained in #point1is to wise to go for new queue manager 'xyz1". MQSeries admin says it increase burden to maintain them. What are the pros and cons?
Please let me know
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| vennela |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
For 1:
It depends on the users. Are the users of the first application completely different from the users of second application? Though you will have the flexibility of having different DB's you will also have to maintain two similar databases. If you have common users in both of them then you will have to perform some duplication work each time. If there are not common users then it may be more appropriate to have two GROUPs.
For 2:
You can name it to whatever you want. It depends on what your naming standards are and a GOOD practice is really what your naming standard is. I think it is not uncommon to have names other than FMCxxxs
Are you planning on creating a new configuration on the same machine or on a different machine?
For 3:
You can have multiple QMGRs depending on the load your machine can take. The advantage with multiple QMGRs is if for some reason one of the QMGRs goes down then other QMGRs on the box will not be affected. But for MQWF I would say for every configuration it is better to have a seperate QMGR.
-------
Venny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ucbus1 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 30 Jan 2002
Posts: 560
|
Thanks venny,
We are planning to create the new configuration on the same machine. Please let me know if it is going to be a problem
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| vennela |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 4055
Location: Hyderabad, India
|
It shouldn't be a problem.
On a Windows TEST box I have had three WF Servers (with three RT DBs) running with no problem. But that was a TEST box and not many processes were running. As far as configuring goes, there would be no problems.
-------
Venny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ucbus1 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2003 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Knight
Joined: 30 Jan 2002
Posts: 560
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
