| Author |
Message
|
| rkford11 |
 Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:08 am Post subject: High Availability & Fail over |
 |
|
Partisan
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 316
|
We are planning on implementing HA solution for our MQ environment to acheive failover of queue manager. Apart from reduced operating costs, does active-standby configuration buy us anything more over active-active configuration. Please suggest me the pros and cons of the two available configurations.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| jefflowrey |
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Poobah
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 19981
|
Active/Active is always implemented as paired-active/passive.
_________________
I am *not* the model of the modern major general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rkford11 |
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 06 Jun 2004
Posts: 316
|
Thanks Jeff. In general, What would be the restart time difference between the two configurations. i.e time taken by passive system to take over failed system in active/passive config and time taken by active system to take over failed system in active/active config.
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7723
|
Its the same thing. A QM can only run on one node. Its gonna take the same amount of time for QM1 to failover from Node A to Node B regarldess of whether Node B has another unrealted QM already running there or not.
How long that takes depends on your exact setup and how many connections the QM needs to shutdown and the exact cause of the failover and etc etc etc
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| senMQ |
| Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Acolyte
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 66
Location: Palo Alto, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
