| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
| MQ Loadbalancing 2 qmgrs on network... |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| zpat |
 Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 19 May 2001
Posts: 5867
Location: UK
|
Big IP can work in GTM or LTM mode.
In GTM it will update the DNS for you (it acts as the authoritive DNS server) if it fails over a service.
In LTM mode the routing to different IP addresses downstream is not exposed, so one IP address is referenced.
rcp_mq - you seem a difficult person to please - could it be you are taking entirely the wrong approach and even the world's best MQ practitioners can't help you?
Maybe you should talk to IBM Hursley Labs directly about what you are trying to do? Someone like Paul Clarke would have the right background to discuss MQ channel protocols in any depth needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:07 am Post subject: Re: MQ Loadbalancing 2 qmgrs on network... |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7723
|
| rcp_mq wrote: |
| For F5 implementation, our developer said 2 similar qmgrs are required on a certain(single network). |
Why, why are 2 QMs required with the same name? As mqjeff said, unless its a self imposed reason, MQ Client apps do not need to know the name of the QM on the MQ Connect call. And your post seems to indicate these are client applications (when you say MQSERVER you mean the MQSERVER variable, only used by MQ Clients, and not an MQ server, which could mean a local app running on the MQ server connecting to the Queue Manager in bindings mode on the same MQ server).
| rcp_mq wrote: |
But they pesterd us and we set it up. Now we are to able perform distributed message passing. (details excluded)
|
Anything and everything seems possible if you exclude the details. The details are what reach up and bite ya.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rcp_mq |
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 133
|
You are right. We don't need the queue manager names to be the same.
but I can't dictate inquisitive pestering souls for an improbable answer...and if it works...i'm liable for an explanation...
My developers have been able to perform intercommunication between 2 similarly named qmgrs in the same network"
That's what my actual question was..."how do i substantiate my answer over that the developer's might have exploited a loophole"
@zpat
There's a reason this topic is at mqseries.net and not anywhere else!
Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| rcp_mq wrote: |
| That's what my actual question was..."how do i substantiate my answer over that the developer's might have exploited a loophole" |
It's potentially no more & no less a loophole than the still-waiting-to-be-explained method of establishing a client connection with nothing more than a single environment variable (no software, no drivers).
Your description of your site indicates that it's a place where software is seen as something to be fought rather than worked with, where requirements are set without thought to the consequences, decisions cannot be challenged and money is no object.
In that environment why are you worried? If the developers have exploited a loophole they've found, what's going to happen if you point this out? If they were worried about having a supportable, scaleable solution based on IBM's recommended practices you'd never have posted here.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9475
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
I've found (especially in my role as consultant) that it is best not to take an opposing position. I also try never to look shocked and amazed - it's unprofessional.
It is better to ask (somewhat rhetorically) "...interesting... how did you arrive at a requirement to give the same name to multiple queue managers?" Then wait for whatever answer might be offered.
Depending on the push-back, I might offer "... I've seen this (fill in problem here) become an issue with other clients at a later time." And, "Is this something that you might want to reconsider?"
I will note (on paper) that I have raised the (fill in problem here) concern, but client seemed to dismiss it as unimportant.
This is my two-strikes rule. FWIW.
_________________
I like deadlines. I like to wave as they pass by.
ב''ה
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. As we Worship, So we Believe, So we Live. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rcp_mq |
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Centurion
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 133
|
Thanks Bruce, Vitor.
4 similar topics already. I think i have gathered enough. (honestly)
Thanks all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| rcp_mq wrote: |
I think i have gathered enough. (honestly)
|
Still awaiting your connection method.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7723
|
| rcp_mq wrote: |
That's what my actual question was..."how do i substantiate my answer over that the developer's might have exploited a loophole"
|
You will never be able to add these QMs into the same cluster.
You will never be able to connect these 2 QMs to a third QM and expect MQ Name Resolution to work 100% from that 3rd QM to these 2.
SSL Certificates are created with the QM name in the label name. I'm not sure you can uniquely identify your 2 QMs via SSL if you have to use the same CA for both and the CA is doing its job and not giving out multiple certs for the same entity.
Some MQ monitoring software was written to respect IBM's best practice, and prevent you from entering 2 QMs with the same name. It can be argued whether this is a good thing or not, but its a potential problem.
You at the very least have made thinsg ambigious. "Yo Johnny, go ahead restart QM1......No, NOOOOO! Not that QM1, the other QM1. Aghhhhh!!!!"
There's a lot in IT and life in general you CAN do, that you shouldn't do just because you can. Whose in charge of the MQ environment? They name the QMs, not anyone else, unless their are legitimate requirements to the contrary, which I eagerly await to hear. Along with the method of connecting with the MQSERVER variable without MQ Client software.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
