App Connect

Expand all | Collapse all

Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

  • 1.  Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

    Posted Fri September 06, 2019 04:47 PM
    An evolution of strategy, a wealth of enhancements and additional features, and an acquisition – all colossal shifts in the integration landscape - happy to answer any questions.

    Check out the webcast here.


    ------------------------------
    Waleed Arshad
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

    Posted Mon September 09, 2019 04:23 AM
    Thanks for reaching out. I wonder if you can help me with a licencing question around MQ and IIB in the pak...

    As far as I understand it RDQM is used as the HA mechanism for MQ - is that right? Therefore, I have at least 3 QM up at any one time (to stop a Byzantine fault). My question is: In terms of licensing, on the face of it this is less efficient than say MQ Multi-instance  (only two licences required). Please can you tell me whether I will be charged more for the ability to have HA MQ or have you somehow jigged the ILMT metrics when running in RDQM mode? This is probably my ignorance because I guess I have the same problem if I were to run RDQM outside of the pak too.

    I add in IIB because I'm guessing that if you are using RDQM for MQ HA then IIB has to follow?

    many thanks.
    John.

    ------------------------------
    John Hawkins
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

    Posted Thu September 12, 2019 05:28 PM

    My understanding is that you can have a three node active:active:active RDQM environment supported by one full MQ Advanced license and two HA replica (20% cost) MQ Advanced licenses. So effectively 1.4 licenses for 3 nodes.

    Obviously you need to allow some headroom to run 2/3 queue managers on one node in a failure scenario, but the licensing is much more favourable than multi-instance (where HA replica licenses only apply to passive queue managers, and full licenses apply to all active queue managers).

     

    Points to note - no support for RDQM in containers therefore not for use when deploying in containers in ICP4I - but can be used outside. Also RDQM for MQ is not supported currently in use with ACE/IIB - therefore that isn't something to consider.



    ------------------------------
    Waleed Arshad
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

    Posted Fri September 13, 2019 04:02 AM
    Thanks Waleed, but I don't quite get your terminology I'm afraid...

    When you have three QM in RDQM only one of them is active at any one time - not three. The other two are standby nodes waiting to take over (three are need to cater for that byzantine failure). So I still only have one QM "running" per se. the other two are being indolent teenagers and hovering in the background getting bored for most of the time.

    So, with RDQM I am paying for 1 full licence (fine it's running). and 2 HA Replica licences (aka standby licence) (20%) cost i.e. 40% of one full licence. 

    So if I have a good ol' fashioned multi-instance scenario then I'm saving myself 20% no ? As I have only one indolent teenager in the background at 20% extra cost - not two?

    Also: I didn't know that you didn't support RDQM in containers ! That's a real surprise - I could have sworn you used RDQM in the integration pak  - do you use multi-instance in that then or perhaps VMs instead of containers? Of course, the point is that I shouldn't care because the licencing should let it come out in  the wash. So, what is the licence cost for HA in the pak - 20% more, 40% more - something else?

    I guess also, in the integration pak I have no choice about QM placement so I couldn't squeeze multiple QM onto one machine(container or VM) and save myself licence cost - which is what my customers do ?

    thanks for your help,
    John.

    ------------------------------
    John Hawkins
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

    Posted Mon September 16, 2019 02:14 AM
    Hi John

    No, RDQM is a special case.  For paying for 1 MQ advanced plus two replica licenses, ALL THREE servers are allowed to run active production queue managers.  If QMGR1 is running on server 1, yes, it will to server two or server 3 when server 1 fails.  But the same is true if QMGR2 that runs live on server 2 fails, it will to server one or server 3.  The same for the 3rd platform.  So, it does not work like multi-instance.  

    In short, the licensing allow you to run live queue managers on all three servers.

    ------------------------------
    Francois van der Merwe
    Hybrid Cloud / Integration Specialist Tech Sales
    IBM
    Johannesburg
    +27825569467
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

    Posted Mon September 16, 2019 04:41 AM
    Ah, thank you Francois - that clarifies most of my question :-)

    Waleed's original answer opens up another unfortunately... I was under the impression that RDQM was used in the integration pak for HA but He says that RDQM can't be used with containers. Which I had always assumed MQ used in the integration pak? Which makes sense when I think about it because it uses kernel libraries which you may not be able to get to from a container or perhaps its the issue of getting to a good physical drive in good latency that's the issue?

    Regardless, are VMs used in the integration pak for MQ HA then - using RDQM or multi-instance? Waleed also mentions that IIB/APPConnect  doesn't use RDQM. So, I'd love to understand how IIB achieves HA when using MQ in the integration pak please? Are there any specific conditions we need to look out for? 


    many thanks !
    John.

    ------------------------------
    John Hawkins
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

    Posted Tue September 17, 2019 09:03 AM
    Hello John,

    RDQM doesn't fit a k8s model for a number of reasons including those you describe. Installing kernel parameters would require something done in the RHOCP/ICP infrastructure which may not be allowed or supported. Also RDQM is more aligned to a model with local disks again which is not suited to a k8s model (and host path (local disks) is not supported by k8s).

    In a k8s model, MQ is more suited to stateful sets and persistent volumes (stored on a network file system) which can be re-attached when k8s starts a pod elsewhere. MQ Multi-Instance Queue Manager is also supported in a container deployment as another way to achieve failover of a QM.

    Some of the MQ considerations are described in:
    https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSFKSJ_9.1.0/com.ibm.mq.mcpak.doc/ha_for_mcpak.htm

    When deploying Cloud Pak for Integration, the components are all deployed as docker images and not VMs. ACE would generally be deployed as a stateless container (and controlled by replica sets) and is independent of the MQ deployment (which has the state of course).


    ------------------------------
    Phil Coxhead
    Certified Consulting IT Specialist
    IBM
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

    Posted Fri September 20, 2019 04:55 AM
    Ah - brilliant thanks Phil for the technical info.

    To get back to licencing specifically then ...

    Let's say I have three QMs in a "normal" environment. I *could* put all three onto one VM and have them fail-over to a multi-instance standby (let's say). That would be two licences - one main and one standby.

    So, in ICP4I. What's the cost going to be of having three containers up instead of two VM's?? (and does that go up as I add new QM?)

    thanks for your help folks !
    John.


    ------------------------------
    John Hawkins
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

    Posted Fri September 20, 2019 11:09 AM
    Hi John,

    I'm noting that this is an App Connect forum but this thread is more about the MQ space, so should probably be moved over. However, having said that, I think a discussion would be a more effective way of helping with your understanding, assumptions and then the context of the questions.

    As a BP, I guess you'll know how to reach out to your nominated Channels rep to get that discussion set up?


    ------------------------------
    Phil Coxhead
    Certified Consulting IT Specialist
    IBM
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Catalyze Your Journey to Cloud with the Cloud Pak for Integration

    Posted Mon September 23, 2019 04:08 AM
    Ah well, it's actually an ICP4C question (as was the original post) . Is there a forum for that ?

    ------------------------------
    John Hawkins
    ------------------------------