| |
|
RSS Feed - WebSphere MQ Support
|
RSS Feed - Message Broker Support
|
  |
|
| MSCS vs multi-instance queue managers (v7) |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| wilsonho3 |
 Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:37 am Post subject: MSCS vs multi-instance queue managers (v7) |
 |
|
Voyager
Joined: 20 Nov 2001
Posts: 98
Location: Hong Kong
|
For failover in window platform. Can MQSC and multi-instance queue managers (V7) can replace each other or both must exist in order to
platform failover. Some mix-up. pls advise
w |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
Multi-Instance queue managers and MSCS-controlled queue managers are entirely different entities and the use of either depends on the requirements of the connecting application/infrastructure - both types provide high-availability and both types can exist but are unlikely to do so on the same infrastructure, i.e. an MI queue manager on MSCS nodes which host an MSCS-controlled queue manager. Further, Multi-Instance queue managers are only usable in their 'native' form if all other connecting infrastructure is at the same version, i.e. 7.0.1.x, or if in a mixed-version environment some whizzy stuff is done with DNS.
If you use Multi-Instance and there are application dependencies on the queue manager, i.e. it connects in binding mode, you will also have to 'fail-over' the application whereas with MSCS you can put the application in the same resource group as the queue manager and it will go where the queue manager goes. On the other hand, if there are no dependencies then it is a much cheaper option than shelling out for Windows Enterprise Server licenses.
But the major show stopper for Multi-Instance queue managers on Windows is that there is only one 'type' of server on which it can be configured, the 'type' that fulfils a particular function, and generally that 'type' of server is not allowed to have any application or other non-system software anywhere near it - Domain Controllers.
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7716
|
| exerk wrote: |
Further, Multi-Instance queue managers are only usable in their 'native' form if all other connecting infrastructure is at the same version, i.e. 7.0.1.x, or if in a mixed-version environment some whizzy stuff is done with DNS.
|
Slight clarification. All the connecting QMs and MQ Clients need to be at MQ 7.0.1 or newer. They don't need to be at the exact same version as the M.I. QM. This is probably what exerk knows and intended to convey, I just can see how someone reading it might think otherwise.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqseries0209 |
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:32 pm Post subject: MI and MSCS |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 90
|
I am working on the similar set-up currently and thinking on the same lines.
What I know is MI and MSCS should not be mixed for MQ HA and only either of them should be used.
If MQ is the only application that needs HA setup, then MI makes sense, but if there are multiple applications using MSCS already its better to use the MSCS for MQ HA.
Some other restrictions for MI on windows (search innocenter with the text here):
For multi-instance queue managers on Microsoft Windows, the networked storage must be accessed by the Common Internet File System (CIFS) protocol used by Microsoft Windows networks.
Each windows server should be a domain controller (already mentioned here).
From Infocenter:
"The only way to ensure each of the servers running queue manager instances use the same local mqm group with the same SID as the owner of the queue manager data and log directories on the file server is to make the local mqm group a domain local group. "
_________________
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Message Broker V6.1
IBM Certified Solution Developer - WebSphere Integration Developer V6.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: MI and MSCS |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| mqseries0209 wrote: |
| ...If MQ is the only application that needs HA setup, then MI makes sense, but if there are multiple applications using MSCS already its better to use the MSCS for MQ HA... |
MQ does not need high-availability - the solution required for the using applications is what dictates whether high-availability of a queue manager is pertinent.
_________________
It's puzzling, I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this before...and it's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9415
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
The C and C++ compilers don't need HA either. Most applications that are not time-critical don't need HA.
As exerk pointed out, it's the end-user application that needs (or doesn't need) HA.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
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
|
|
|
|
