| Author |
Message
|
| mqjeff |
 Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
Are you using circular logging? Is it small?
Are you using different file systems for your logs and for your queue storage, that are on different physical disks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| noles321 wrote: |
| ...Well at least i am mildly happy that I haven't completly lost my mind... |
You're a WMQ Admin...it's only a matter of time 
_________________
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 |
|
|
| sumit |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 398
|
| exerk wrote: |
| No they're not...read the original post! It's queue manager-to-queue manager, therefore the client app has no call on a message until the receiving MCA has committed it. |
Thnx for correcting. I missed that bit.
_________________
Regards
Sumit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9482
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
| Quote: |
| only around 30 messages a second pulling when messages are simulataniously being put to the queue. |
Hmmmm. I've seen this kind of behavior (behaviour) where a powerful mainframe sends lots of messages to a puny midrange server.
Take a look at batchsize/batchinterval. If batchsize is really big, the MCA will put messages in large UofWsl abd until both MCAs agree that the batch is complete, the midrange MCA can't comit. For lack of resources (compared to mainframe), the little guy MCA just can't keep up.
_________________
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 |
|
|
| PeterPotkay |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:01 am Post subject: Re: . |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7723
|
| noles321 wrote: |
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| What is the arrival rate of the persistent messages on the Linux queue? In other words, is the channel from the mainframe to the Linux server only putting them at 30 messages a second, maybe because the mainframe is producing them at only 30 a second? |
No we are putting at 150 messages a second and the client is not keepin up with them only pulling around 30. Once the putting application has finished putting all of the messages the client start dequeing at 250 msg/s. |
You are putting 150 a second on the mainframe remote q def, but at what rate are they arriving at the Linux queue?
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| bruce2359 |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 9482
Location: US: west coast, almost. Otherwise, enroute.
|
This sounds like an oppurtunity for WMQ network monitoring, too, doesn't it?
_________________
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: Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:48 am Post subject: Re: . |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| You are putting 150 a second on the mainframe remote q def, but at what rate are they arriving at the Linux queue? |
Even a thin-n-crispy Windoze server should be capable of handling that 
_________________
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 |
|
|
| mqjeff |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:02 am Post subject: Re: . |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 25 Jun 2008
Posts: 17447
|
| exerk wrote: |
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| You are putting 150 a second on the mainframe remote q def, but at what rate are they arriving at the Linux queue? |
Even a thin-n-crispy Windoze server should be capable of handling that |
Unless the logging is at the default size. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:02 pm Post subject: Re: . |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| mqjeff wrote: |
| exerk wrote: |
| PeterPotkay wrote: |
| You are putting 150 a second on the mainframe remote q def, but at what rate are they arriving at the Linux queue? |
Even a thin-n-crispy Windoze server should be capable of handling that |
Unless the logging is at the default size. |
3+2, 4*256 for 5MB of log.
4KB messages * 150 for < 630KB messages
It should do it, but then it's Winzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 
Sums were never my forte by the way, which is my excuse if the figures are wrong 
_________________
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: Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Poobah
Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 7723
|
What I'm getting at is that the MF may be putting them at 150 per second, but the flakey network may be delivering them to Linux at only 30 per second. The client is only pulling 30 a second because that is only as fast as they are arriving. Is there any queueing in the XMITQ on the mainframe going to the Linux QM?
_________________
Peter Potkay
Keep Calm and MQ On |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| exerk |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Posts: 6339
|
| vol wrote: |
| Are the msgs persistent? |
Do at least scan the previous posts...
| Noles321 wrote: |
| I have test setup where a Mainframe poplulates persistent messages... |
_________________
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 |
|
|
| gunter |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Partisan
Joined: 21 Jan 2004
Posts: 307
Location: Germany, Frankfurt
|
Maybe you have a network bottleneck if client connection goes over the sam wire than the channel.
I'm not a networker, but my calculation is:
4k * (150 + 30) = 720 kb/sec ~ 5Mbit/sec
Add a little for MQ. You propably don't use the networt exclusive or you are not allowed to use more than this.
_________________
Gunter Jeschawitz
IBM Certified System Administrator - Websphere MQ, 5.3 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
