| Author |
Message
|
| BBM |
 Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Master
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 217
Location: London, UK
|
Hi,
Thanks for all the help - it turns out as Peter mentioned that the *QIUKLMB was being passed in the queue object also. This was the cause of the issue.
We are now looking at recoding all our JMS client apps to avoid this issue.
Many thanks to all that helped on this one.
Cheers
BBM |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20767
Location: LI,NY
|
BBM, your passing a *NAME in the queue manager field would point to using a channel table containing NAME in the qmgr field, thus being able to select from a restricted list of channels... and having automatic connection failover...
Now if you do not use the channel table you should not have a pattern of *NAME.
Enjoy 
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BBM |
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 217
Location: London, UK
|
Hi FJB,
We're using the asterisk as we are due to migrate to a mainframe where we have queue sharing groups setup. The * is necessary to load balance traffic between the QMs as I understand it.
It also make it easier on go-live day since we do not have to change anything on the client side.
Does this make sense or have we missed something?
Cheers
BBM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20767
Location: LI,NY
|
| BBM wrote: |
Hi FJB,
We're using the asterisk as we are due to migrate to a mainframe where we have queue sharing groups setup. The * is necessary to load balance traffic between the QMs as I understand it.
BBM |
Looks like you missed the coach entirely...
Cluster will give you load balancing.
The channel table will not give you load balancing (see rules in client manual) but will add failover capability to your client connection.
Any attempt at client connection balancing will involve either some environmental solution (multiple channel table files with different setup) or some Hardware (Big Ip etc...) or some fancy coding...
Enjoy
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7723
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
Any attempt at client connection balancing will involve either some environmental solution (multiple channel table files with different setup) or some Hardware (Big Ip etc...) or some fancy coding... |
or MQ 7.0, which allows the MQ Admin to build an MQ Client channel table with load balancing or percentage based weighting built right in. Very 
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BBM |
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 217
Location: London, UK
|
Hi,
We are not using client channel tables - they are not supported on z/OS as far as I know. We are configuring the client using SET MQSERVER/EXPRT MQ SERVER environment variables.
Apologies, I had got my facts wrong on the load balancing this is not what the asterisk is being used for. The load balancing is being carried out by a dvipa z/OS virtual address.
We are using the asterisk purely so the clients do not reject the new queue manager when they connect to it since the name will be different.
By adding the asterisk the queue manager can be called anything we like so it will make the migration smoother. As for delivery of messages we already have qmgr alias in place to route them.
Thanks again for all the helpful suggestions...
BBM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20767
Location: LI,NY
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| fjb_saper wrote: |
Any attempt at client connection balancing will involve either some environmental solution (multiple channel table files with different setup) or some Hardware (Big Ip etc...) or some fancy coding... |
or MQ 7.0, which allows the MQ Admin to build an MQ Client channel table with load balancing or percentage based weighting built right in. Very |
Very indeed Peter. Thanks for the reminder.
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| BBM wrote: |
| ...we have queue sharing groups setup. The * is necessary to load balance traffic between the QMs as I understand it... |
Why are you not using the QSG name?
_________________
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 |
|
|
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20767
Location: LI,NY
|
| exerk wrote: |
| BBM wrote: |
| ...we have queue sharing groups setup. The * is necessary to load balance traffic between the QMs as I understand it... |
Why are you not using the QSG name? |
Because his qmgrs may be on zlinux and not on zOS!
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| exerk wrote: |
| BBM wrote: |
| ...we have queue sharing groups setup. The * is necessary to load balance traffic between the QMs as I understand it... |
Why are you not using the QSG name? |
Because his qmgrs may be on zlinux and not on zOS! |
I'm sorry, either I'm having a thick moment or I have misinterpreted something in BBM's statement of:
| Quote: |
| We're using the asterisk as we are due to migrate to a mainframe where we have queue sharing groups setup... |
_________________
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 |
|
|
| BBM |
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 217
Location: London, UK
|
Hi,
We're not using the QSG name as we are still on Wintel based queue managers. We are yet to migrate, using the asterisk is a pre-migration step for us.
BBM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| BBM wrote: |
| ...using the asterisk is a pre-migration step for us... |
Got it! Thank you...
_________________
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 |
|
|
| BBM |
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 217
Location: London, UK
|
Peter: one last question, is the blank queue manager name thing peculiar to JMS?
My understanding was that if no QM name is specified when connecting it would only connect to a queue manager if there was a default queue manager defined. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7723
|
That is not specific to JMS. Any MQ Client does not need to specify a QM name. There is only 1 possible QM at any hostname and port number, so there is no need for a QM name for MQ Clients on the MQCONNX call.
Bindings mode, yes, you need a QM names unless you are connecting to a QM that is defined as the Default QM.
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BBM |
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Master
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 217
Location: London, UK
|
Great thanks Peter..
I found the example in the MQ Clients manual now... learn something new every day!
Cheers - as always a great help..
BBM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
