| Author |
Message
|
| jefflowrey |
 Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
| Nigelg wrote: |
| Kevinf, you have your reasoning a little backward. |
Actually, Kevinf has his reasoning pretty much right on the money. It's your sarcasm detector that needs a tweak or two.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20763
Location: LI,NY
|
Or the local queue is a qremote and not a qlocal. If this qremote points to an inexisting qmgr (no qmgr alias defined etc...) the message may well go to the DLQ as the qmgr cannot resolve to a known destination....
And the RC could possibly be 2087?
Or if the qmgr is known 2085 on that qmgrs DLQ if the destq does not exist...
Enjoy 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mr Butcher |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Padawan
Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 1716
|
| Quote: |
| Or the local queue is a qremote and not a qlocal. If this qremote points to an inexisting qmgr (no qmgr alias defined etc...) the message may well go to the DLQ as the qmgr cannot resolve to a known destination.... |
no. if the program puts to a "local definition of a remote queue", it must resolve to a local queue (xmitq). if mq is not able to do that, it will give the application program a returncode and will not put anything into the dlq.
_________________
Regards, Butcher |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Mr Butcher wrote: |
no. if the program puts to a "local definition of a remote queue", it must resolve to a local queue (xmitq). if mq is not able to do that, it will give the application program a returncode and will not put anything into the dlq. |
For the record a 2087 MQRC_UNKNOWN_REMOTE_Q_MGR on the put. You can get it onto a DLQ if the remote definition points to an exisiting XMITQ, but it's the DLQ on the queue manager that the XMITQ points to and the header has (obviously) another 2087 because the hop has failed. Not the 2085 that atheek claimed he got. To get that you need to put it to a remote queue definition that has a valid XMITQ pointing to a valid queue manager but which does not host a queue of the name specified in the remote queue definition. Again, this does not match the problem atheek posted where he claimed the message ended up in the DLQ on the queue manager where he was doing the put.
And while doing a put to a local queue not a remote one anyway. Go figure 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20763
Location: LI,NY
|
I'm beginning to think he is doing a multihop pointing back to the qmgr of the original put.
If your multihop is done correctly you may then end up in the DLQ of the qmgr you put to with a 2085:
Put to remote queue on qmgr A going to qmgr B for queue D on qmgr C (RC =0). On B have a qmgr Alias for C pointing back to A tranforming the qmgr name to A.
End up in A and not be able to resolve the qname (D) => go to DLQ in A with 2085.
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| Vitor wrote: |
And while doing a put to a local queue not a remote one anyway. Go figure |
fjb_saper - exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of (yay me!  ) but relies on a remote queue being the first target. Which was not apparently the case... 
I repeat, Go Figure. 
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20763
Location: LI,NY
|
| Vitor wrote: |
| Vitor wrote: |
And while doing a put to a local queue not a remote one anyway. Go figure |
fjb_saper - exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of (yay me! ) but relies on a remote queue being the first target. Which was not apparently the case...
I repeat, Go Figure. |
How about a qalias being the first target?
Like I said, he did not specify it having been a qlocal but just a local queue....There a tons of types of "local" queues...
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
