| Author |
Message
|
| exerk |
 Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why dangerous? I want to be there the first time someone, or something, inadvertantly of course, tries to start the queue manager on both nodes... |
Until it is tested and proven to function correctly, a DR (or HA) plan is just that - a plan. |
Old military maxim: "No plan survives first contact with the enemy"
_________________
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 |
|
 |
| sunny_30 |
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 258
|
exerk, you said:
| Code: |
| So, no queue managers configured on that system then? |
THIS IS ON FAILOVER
So, NO qm will be running on failover when the shared file-systems are mounted on primary
We have the same HA-setup running in prod for past 3 years with no problems and I dont anticipate any problems with the setup atleast "dangerous" ones... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9475
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| We have the same HA-setup running in prod for past 3 years with no problems and I dont anticipate any problems with the setup at least "dangerous" ones... |
Have you tested the failover? Or is this wishful thinking?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| bruce2359 wrote: |
| Have you tested the failover? Or is this wishful thinking? |
I shall await your answer - on which depends whether I eat crow, or I crow 
_________________
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 |
|
|
| sunny_30 |
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 258
|
Yes TESTED both applications: MQ & WMB failover, failback.
We have been running this setup in production for past 3 years, there were occassions the system ran on both nodes(each acting as primary) for long time-intervals with no problems |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20763
Location: LI,NY
|
| sunny_30 wrote: |
Yes TESTED both applications: MQ & WMB failover, failback.
We have been running this setup in production for past 3 years, there were occassions the system ran on both nodes(each acting as primary) for long time-intervals with no problems |
And how pray will you change to an active/active configuration when requested? 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
This is what I love about the product, and this site. Not only have I learned something, but I've had fun doing it  mmmmmmmmm....this crow tastes good!
I still wouldn't do it your way though, if ever there is a requirement to configure a 'local' queue manager, you're stuffed! and see above...
_________________
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 |
|
|
| sunny_30 |
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 258
|
Yes, active-active is not possible with the way its implemented here.
We never had a requirement to run parallel QM instances or local-QM instances on cluster-nodes. Both nodes in cluster will always run in active-passive setup, the other node will only be activated if one of the node "FAILS".
Does MC91-supportpac enable active-active setup ?
What does active-active imply? running QMs on seperate systems added into same MQ-cluster, load-balanced, a gateway-QM, cluster-aliases. correct?
We didnt have to get into that depth for our HA-requirement
| Code: |
| I still wouldn't do it your way though |
agree. you dont have to |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| sunny_30 wrote: |
| ...Does MC91-supportpac enable active-active setup ? |
Yes.
| sunny_30 wrote: |
| ...What does active-active imply? running QMs on seperate systems added into same MQ-cluster, load-balanced, a gateway-QM, cluster-aliases. correct? |
No, not correct. Some sites are not happy for a server to be under-utilised, or in your case it seems, not utilised at all. Active/Active (MC91 style) means an HA queue manager running on each node, and either node has the grunt to run both queue managers should a server fail.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| sunny_30 wrote: |
| What does active-active imply? running QMs on seperate systems added into same MQ-cluster, load-balanced, a gateway-QM, cluster-aliases. correct? |
No. Do not continue the urban myth that WMQ clustering is in some way connected to HA; it is not! It's simply a workload balancing methodology, and a clustered queue manager could easily be protected by an HA solution. 
Active/active means that the failover machine is not passive, but performs tasks in it's own right while the primary is running, just as if it was a separate server (which of course it is). Once the primary is failed over onto it, these tasks (and the software running them) is suspended and it becomes the primary. This means that the failover (in this example) would have it's own queue manager separate from the production one it's protecting that runs simultaniously to production.
And this is basic, basic HA stuff.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunny_30 |
| Posted: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 258
|
| Appreciate the valuable insights. Nice learning, thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Active-Active is just two overlapped Active-Passive setups.
That is, it is a pair of Active-Passive set ups in which there are only two systems rather than four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7722
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
Active-Active is just two overlapped Active-Passive setups.
That is, it is a pair of Active-Passive set ups in which there are only two systems rather than four. |
In other words, there is no way a single QM can span 2 servers at the same time which would be true active/active, as is possible with other technologies I am told.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| It kind of depends on what you really mean by "the same queue manager". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| It kind of depends on what you really mean by "the same queue manager". |
I would suppose it to be like an HA queue manager (as we know it on UNIX), which, as far as each node is concerned, is 'local' to it, i.e. the same as if it resides in the node's discrete file system, and should one node fail, there is no interruption of service. In other words, one where the service group can be concurrently mounted.
_________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
