| Author |
Message
|
| career |
 Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:21 am Post subject: how to test for clustering |
 |
|
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 36
|
Hi guys,
I am new MQ and still in learning phase. I have 4 Qmgrs in a cluster in which 2 are full repository. Now I want to test for the failover (as in websphere application server, in a cluster where if one clone/server goes down other server/clone in the cluster will take up the request) in MQ Clustering. How can this be experimented/tested in MQ?
will some one plz suggest !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
MQ Clustering is for workload balancing not for high availability failover. It doesn't work the same as Veritas clusters or similar. If you have v6 you can do something like by adjusting the cluster parameters, but if what you want is high availability clustering use a high availability solution.
This is a commonly discussed topic in here.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| career |
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 36
|
Thanks !! I have another question
Is it a must to use HA cluster software like veritas cluster server, steel eye life keeper etc to achive high availability?
If so, which one would suit best for REHL v 4.0 platform? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| career wrote: |
| Is it a must to use HA cluster software like veritas cluster server, steel eye life keeper etc to achive high availability? |
IMHO yes. I certainly believe MQ clustering to be unsuitable for this purpose.
| career wrote: |
| If so, which one would suit best for REHL v 4.0 platform? |
Whichever best meets your requirements (including your budgetary ones).
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| UglyAngelX |
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager
Joined: 04 Dec 2001
Posts: 90
Location: BEARS FAN IN STEELER COUNTRY
|
| We run a 3 server cluster that acts as failover in the event 1 or 2 other servers go down. The main purpose of the cluster is worload balancing, with a secondary of high availability and it has been used a couple times in the this capacity. unsuitable or not, it was setup before I got here and it does server it's purpose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| career |
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apprentice
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 36
|
Hi guyz thanks !!! 
I came across a document where it says " combining external HA clustering technology with WebSphere MQ queue manager clusters, it provides the ultimate high availability configuration for distributed WebSphere MQ. It makes both incoming and queued messages available and also fails over not only a queue manager, but also any other resources running on the machine".
"you can set up a cluster that has more than one definition for the same queue, and can therefore benefit from increased availability and workload balancing in your network'.
now my question is how to create more than one defination/instance?
Is it ALIASING? please advice |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| career wrote: |
| I came across a document where it says " combining external HA clustering technology with WebSphere MQ queue manager clusters, it provides the ultimate high availability configuration for distributed WebSphere MQ. It makes both incoming and queued messages available and also fails over not only a queue manager, but also any other resources running on the machine". |
What document, where, refering to what?
| career wrote: |
| "you can set up a cluster that has more than one definition for the same queue, and can therefore benefit from increased availability and workload balancing in your network'. |
Increased availability is not high availability. This (or variations of it) is a discussion that's been had many times in many forms on the forum. The search button will turn them up.
A key problem in using MQ clustering for high availability is the problem of stuck messages. This can be mitigated to an extent in v6 (as I said in an earlier post) but it remains a problem.
| career wrote: |
now my question is how to create more than one defination/instance?
Is it ALIASING? please advice |
No it isn't, and my advice is to re-read the Clustering manual. This is a fairly fundamental point and if you've not got this you'll get yourself in a tangle.
Depending on how far you are through your learning phase, you might be well advised to stick to hub & spoke set ups until you've got a grounding, then convert it to a cluster. Just a suggestion.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
