Withdrawal of MC91

[Robert, Andrew]

Per
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg24011869&myns=swgws&myn
p=OCSSFKSJ&mync=E , the MC91 support pack has been withdrawn from
service as main function is now included in the main WebSphere MQ
V7.0.1.0 product.

What's everyone's opinion on this, especially for those who have not
moved to v7?



Andrew Robert
MQ Architect
Information Technologies
MFS Investment Services
Phone: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
E-mail: arobert-***@public.gmane.org


MFS Mail Relay Service made the following annotation on 08/31/09, 12:35:26

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This email communication and any attachments may contain proprietary, confidential, or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this email in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or its contents is prohibited. The sender does not waive confidentiality or any privilege by mistransmission. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete this email, and destroy all copies and any attachments.
==============================================================================

To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and,
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES

[David C. Partridge]

FWIW, my reaction is push for IBM not to withdraw it for a good long while,
at least until MQ6 goes out of service.

PS Is anyone in UK looking for an MQ and Broker person (especially if in the
Midlands). Primarily looking for contract, but will consider permanent
roles. If so please contact me off list at david.partridge-***@public.gmane.org

Cheers
Dave Partridge
-----Original Message-----
From: MQSeries List [mailto:MQSERIES-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of
Robert, Andrew
Sent: 31 August 2009 17:35
To: MQSERIES-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Withdrawal of MC91

Per
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg24011869&myns=swgws&myn
p=OCSSFKSJ&mync=E , the MC91 support pack has been withdrawn from service as
main function is now included in the main WebSphere MQ V7.0.1.0 product.

What's everyone's opinion on this, especially for those who have not moved
to v7?

To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and,
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES

[Potkay, Peter M (ISD, IT)]

I was surprised how fast MC91 was pulled. The same day as MQ 7.0.1 was
released. As if someone was waiting to pull the trigger ASAP.


MQ 6.0 is still fully supported for at least another year. And if your
QM is 7.0.1, the incoming MQ Clients and connecting QMs all have to be
7.0.1 as well before you can take advantage of the new Multi Instance
feature.
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an
&appname=iSource&supplier=877&letternum=ENUSZP09-0282&open&cm_mmc=5344-_
-n-_-vrm_newsletter-_-10285_126064&cmibm_em=dm:0:10662635

"For highest levels of messaging availability, use of platform-specific
hardware-based mechanisms with HA Coordinators like HACMP is
recommended. HA Coordinators provide more robust monitoring and more
flexible coordination and restart capabilities.

WebSphere MQ V7.0.1 replaces the need for SupportPac(tm) MC91 -- High
Availability for WebSphere MQ on UNIX(r) platforms -- which is planned
for withdrawal."



So even in the section that talks about Multi Instance QMs its stated
that you should still use HACMP or VCS type technologies for "highest
levels of messaging availability", yet the doc that tells you how to do
just that (MC91) is being pulled. :-?


We use VCS for all our UNIX clustered QMs. Even when we go to MQ 7.0.1
in Q1 2010, I see us sticking with VCS for quite a while. Its gonna be a
long time before all the QMs and all the clients are upgraded and make
the changes to use Multi Instance QMs.

But for brand new installations I think Multi Instance QMs could be the
#1 choice for H.A. especially when you factor in the $$$.


Peter Potkay
MQSeries Team Leader
IBM Global Services - The Hartford Account


-----Original Message-----
From: MQSeries List [mailto:MQSERIES-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of David C. Partridge
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:44 PM
To: MQSERIES-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: Withdrawal of MC91

FWIW, my reaction is push for IBM not to withdraw it for a good long
while, at least until MQ6 goes out of service.

PS Is anyone in UK looking for an MQ and Broker person (especially if in
the Midlands). Primarily looking for contract, but will consider
permanent roles. If so please contact me off list at
david.partridge-***@public.gmane.org

Cheers
Dave Partridge
-----Original Message-----
From: MQSeries List [mailto:MQSERIES-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Robert, Andrew
Sent: 31 August 2009 17:35
To: MQSERIES-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Withdrawal of MC91

Per
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg24011869&myns=swgws&myn
p=OCSSFKSJ&mync=E , the MC91 support pack has been withdrawn from
service as main function is now included in the main WebSphere MQ
V7.0.1.0 product.

What's everyone's opinion on this, especially for those who have not
moved to v7?

To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and, in the
message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES Instructions for
managing your mailing list subscription are provided in the Listserv
General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://listserv.meduniwien.ac.at/archives/mqser-l.html
************************************************************
This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of addressee and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, copying, disclosure, dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this communication and destroy all copies.
************************************************************

To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and,
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES

[Neil Casey]

Hi folks,

I don't think the situation is as bad as some of us fear. MC91 was a category 2 (unwarranted "as is") offering, so we could not raise support calls against faults in it anyway.

The code is still available for download, and if past performance can be relied on, will continue to be for a long time (there is a link on the MQ support pack page which goes to a list of the withdrawn support packs, most if no all of which can still be downloaded).

According to the release information for V7.0.1 and the withdrawal announcement for MC91, the code has now been included in the product, much like the MSCS feature in the Windows version. This means that not only can we avoid downloading and installing additional code, but if there is a problem, we can report it and get an official fix.

So, I think the situation is that those on MQ 6 or 7.0.0 are no worse off, and if you can migrate to 7.0.1 you get a fully supported feature, which has to be good.

Regards,

Neil Casey.
-----cut-----
I was surprised how fast MC91 was pulled. The same day as MQ 7.0.1 was released. As if someone was waiting to pull the trigger ASAP.


MQ 6.0 is still fully supported for at least another year. And if your QM is 7.0.1, the incoming MQ Clients and connecting QMs all have to be
7.0.1 as well before you can take advantage of the new Multi Instance feature.
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an
&appname=iSource&supplier=877&letternum=ENUSZP09-0282&open&cm_mmc=5344-_
-n-_-vrm_newsletter-_-10285_126064&cmibm_em=dm:0:10662635

"For highest levels of messaging availability, use of platform-specific hardware-based mechanisms with HA Coordinators like HACMP is recommended. HA Coordinators provide more robust monitoring and more flexible coordination and restart capabilities.

WebSphere MQ V7.0.1 replaces the need for SupportPac(tm) MC91 -- High Availability for WebSphere MQ on UNIX(r) platforms -- which is planned for withdrawal."



So even in the section that talks about Multi Instance QMs its stated that you should still use HACMP or VCS type technologies for "highest levels of messaging availability", yet the doc that tells you how to do just that (MC91) is being pulled. :-?


We use VCS for all our UNIX clustered QMs. Even when we go to MQ 7.0.1 in Q1 2010, I see us sticking with VCS for quite a while. Its gonna be a long time before all the QMs and all the clients are upgraded and make the changes to use Multi Instance QMs.

But for brand new installations I think Multi Instance QMs could be the
#1 choice for H.A. especially when you factor in the $$$.


Peter Potkay
MQSeries Team Leader
IBM Global Services - The Hartford Account
-----end cut-----

To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and,
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES

[Ruud van Zundert]

Guys - just a little reminder about the new function called 'Multi-instance
Queue Managers' ... it is not fully available on all platforms as yet ...
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21398427 (not i5/OS or
Solaris) ... as well as
http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?rs=171&uid=swg27011925 (not RHEL4)
plus the specific requirements to make it work like a NAS and the right
protocol.

Cheers ... Ruud

Post by Neil Casey
Hi folks,
I don't think the situation is as bad as some of us fear. MC91 was a
category 2 (unwarranted "as is") offering, so we could not raise support
calls against faults in it anyway.
The code is still available for download, and if past performance can be
relied on, will continue to be for a long time (there is a link on the MQ
support pack page which goes to a list of the withdrawn support packs, most
if no all of which can still be downloaded).
According to the release information for V7.0.1 and the withdrawal
announcement for MC91, the code has now been included in the product, much
like the MSCS feature in the Windows version. This means that not only can
we avoid downloading and installing additional code, but if there is a
problem, we can report it and get an official fix.
So, I think the situation is that those on MQ 6 or 7.0.0 are no worse off,
and if you can migrate to 7.0.1 you get a fully supported feature, which has
to be good.
Regards,
Neil Casey.
-----cut-----
I was surprised how fast MC91 was pulled. The same day as MQ 7.0.1 was
released. As if someone was waiting to pull the trigger ASAP.
MQ 6.0 is still fully supported for at least another year. And if your QM
is 7.0.1, the incoming MQ Clients and connecting QMs all have to be
7.0.1 as well before you can take advantage of the new Multi Instance
feature.
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=ca&infotype=an
&appname=iSource&supplier=877&letternum=ENUSZP09-0282&open&cm_mmc=5344-_
-n-_-vrm_newsletter-_-10285_126064&cmibm_em=dm:0:10662635
"For highest levels of messaging availability, use of platform-specific
hardware-based mechanisms with HA Coordinators like HACMP is recommended. HA
Coordinators provide more robust monitoring and more flexible coordination
and restart capabilities.
WebSphere MQ V7.0.1 replaces the need for SupportPac(tm) MC91 -- High
Availability for WebSphere MQ on UNIX(r) platforms -- which is planned for
withdrawal."
So even in the section that talks about Multi Instance QMs its stated that
you should still use HACMP or VCS type technologies for "highest levels of
messaging availability", yet the doc that tells you how to do just that
(MC91) is being pulled. :-?
We use VCS for all our UNIX clustered QMs. Even when we go to MQ 7.0.1 in
Q1 2010, I see us sticking with VCS for quite a while. Its gonna be a long
time before all the QMs and all the clients are upgraded and make the
changes to use Multi Instance QMs.
But for brand new installations I think Multi Instance QMs could be the
#1 choice for H.A. especially when you factor in the $$$.
Peter Potkay
MQSeries Team Leader
IBM Global Services - The Hartford Account
-----end cut-----
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES
Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in
the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://listserv.meduniwien.ac.at/archives/mqser-l.html

To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and,
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES
Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in
the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://listserv.meduniwien.ac.at/archives/mqser-l.html

[Coombs, Lawrence]

As a best practice, I am just curious as to whether or not you run your
distributed queue managers with
the accounting and/or statistics attributes turned on or you turn them
on when there is a problem?
I am thinking of running with just the statistics attributes turned on
so that I can get some real time
monitoring data.

To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and,
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES

[Richard Tsujimoto]

That's pretty much what the 3rd party monitoring products rely on.

Richard Tsujimoto
Consultant
IT Infrastructure
Canon U.S.A., Inc.
( Office: 516-328-5797
2 Fax: [phone]
* Email: rtsujimoto_consultant-4rFW8h42HsvSUeElwK9/***@public.gmane.org



"Coombs, Lawrence" <Lawrence.Coombs-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent by: MQSeries List <MQSERIES-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org>
09/08/2009 12:12 PM
Please respond to
MQSeries List <MQSERIES-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org>


To
MQSERIES-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org
cc

Subject
Re: Online monitoritng data for queues and channels







As a best practice, I am just curious as to whether or not you run your
distributed queue managers with
the accounting and/or statistics attributes turned on or you turn them
on when there is a problem?
I am thinking of running with just the statistics attributes turned on
so that I can get some real time
monitoring data.

To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and,
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES
Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in
the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://listserv.meduniwien.ac.at/archives/mqser-l.html


To unsubscribe, write to LISTSERV-0lvw86wZMd9k/bWDasg6f+***@public.gmane.org and,
in the message body (not the subject), write: SIGNOFF MQSERIES
Instructions for managing your mailing list subscription are provided in
the Listserv General Users Guide available at http://www.lsoft.com
Archive: http://listserv.meduniwien.ac.at/archives/mqser-l.html