| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| WMQI Architecture |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| mqs_guy |
 Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:02 pm Post subject: WMQI Architecture |
 |
|
Acolyte
Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 71
|
Hi,
I have a question pertaining to the Architecture/infrastructure most commonly used for WMQI projects.
Since WMQI allows distribution of its components on different systems and databases, can u guys please guide me which one of below is most recommended.
1) Having the Configuration Manager, Control Centre and the Broker on the Windows machine.
2) Having the Configuration Manager, Control Centre on the Windows machine and the Broker on a Unix machine (AIX or Solaris)
We are planning to have 3 landscapes being Development, Test and Production.
I can understand that the first option is feasible for developers (in our case Development) wherein they can build, deploy and test message flows on the same box. But in case of Test and QA do u recommend the second option? if yes...why? Are there any other options?
Is it advantageous going for the 2nd approach and keeping the broker seperate? We are looking at a infrastructure that would work for long term and integrate applications.
Your inputs are highly appreciated. Also it would be very helpful if you could recommend sites/links that talk abt scenarios like these.
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Vishal Agrawal |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| WBI_user |
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 07 Aug 2001
Posts: 386
|
First I'll decide where my production work will run. A lot of people choose to run their production in UNIX because they believe that UNIX will give them the reliablility and security they want. There are people who feel comfortable of running their production under Windows. The broker is where the production work runs. So if you pick UNIX to be your production environment, then you have the answer already (option 2). The config manager and control center has to run in Windows, you have no choice. They only option is if you want the broker to be in the same box.
If you pick an all WIndows environment, your developer can probably have everything n one box for the development environment. However , you don't want your production broker to be on the same box as the developer. So your production broker will be on a separate box. Some may have the development broker and QA broker on one box. Some may have them all separated.
If you pcik the windows and UNIX mix, then your brokers will be all UNIX, because you don't want to test your flow in a Windows broker and deploy it to a UNIX production broker. Again you can have test and QA broker on one UNIX box and the production broker on a separate one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kirani |
| Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Knight
Joined: 05 Sep 2001
Posts: 3779
Location: Torrance, CA, USA
|
You might want to consider the cost of this products also on different platforms. I guess the NT license is cheaper than the license for UNIX platform. But, again its your call to decide upon the platform first.
As someone mentioned in earlier post, you dont want to deploy your message flows directly to the production/QA Broker, which is on a different platform. I'd highly recommend that your development broker should also reside on the same platform.
If you are planning to install Broker/ConfigMgr on each developers machine then you need to look into licensing issues.
_________________
Kiran
IBM Cert. Solution Designer & System Administrator - WBIMB V5
IBM Cert. Solutions Expert - WMQI
IBM Cert. Specialist - WMQI, MQSeries
IBM Cert. Developer - MQSeries
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| zpat |
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5866
Location: UK
|
I believe the license costs are now the same for any platform on a per processor basis for any machines running a broker.
I suggest running the config managers on separate platforms in all cases to maximise the usage of the system where you have to license the product (the broker platform).
Development on Windows brokers may be convenient, but make sure you test on the final platform well before the production stage (if it's UNIX).
For maximum cost savings conside use of a powerful Intel platform running VMWARE, this can support multiple Windows systems and also Linux at the same time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqs_guy |
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2003 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 09 May 2002
Posts: 71
|
Thank you guys, for your inputs.
The summary of the discussion is ....People choose UNIX 'cause its stable, secure and reliable. That's the reason most of the production servers are on UNIX and not on WINDOWS.
I liked the idea of having an environment similar as production, so the message flows can be deployed and tested before being ported to production.
Abt licenses, they are based on capacity units (number of processors). We have enough licenses both for Unix and windows. Not a problem 
Thanks Again.
Cheers,
Vishal Agrawal |
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
