Monique,
thanks for the response, but the user is an administrator and is a member of mqm.
the problem is not with the user, but with the permissions on the files. All other
files
have open access, but the file that the uninstaller objects to is missing write
permission.
(I use cygwin as I am
Please ignore my 2nd question (just part of my incorrect editing of the note; I forgot to delete it when doing multitasking ;).
Ruzi
Eileen Duchane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have seen this before, although it was not the result of upgrading toz/OS. I believe that our channel initiator still had
RR.
I encounted
this usually beign message when I converted from MQSeries 2.1 to WMQ 5.3 on
Os390 2.10.
I too have
Windows 2000 boxes running Mqseries 5.2.1
Heres my
ETR to IBM and the fix
While IBM never
really answered my questions, I found an Info APAR that says its ok to
ignore the
As promised, here's a notification that my new SupportPac which allows you
to effectively run an MQSC program but as a client into a remote server is
live.
The SupportPac number is MO72 which is kinda odd cos MO71 is another one of
mine I wrote 7 years ago.
Here's the link,
Hello Mike,
To check real Windows ACLs, use CACLS command on NT. As for the problem itself I
noticed that couple of DLLs could not be removed when I uninstalled MQ for Windows
last time (more than a year ago, so I do not remember much details like versions). I
had to add some hack into the
Excuse me but if you are defining sender channels for each QM then you
no longer have a true cluster but rather a distributed system and you
are back to all of the admin headaches of a distributed system. I have
no solution to offer but I'm sure someone at IBM has seen this and does
either have a
Thanks, Paul! This will be very useful. I wasn't surprised by the numbering though -
I figured all along they had reserved a block of Support Pac numbers just for you. ;-)
-- T.Rob
-Original Message-
From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul
Clarke
Sent: Tuesday,
Thanks, Ron. I never had this problem before, it must have someting to do with the upgrade.
RRRonald Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RR.
I encounted this usually beign message when I converted from MQSeries 2.1 to WMQ 5.3 on Os390 2.10.
I too have Windows 2000 boxes running Mqseries 5.2.1
I will be out of the office starting 09/21/2004 and will not return until
09/27/2004.
I will be out of the office and attending all day meetings in Palisades
9/21 through 9/24. I will have limited access to e-mail during this time.
I will respond to your message within 24 hours. If the matter
Thanks T.Rob, glad to be of service.
I forgot to mention in my previous append that since this is a command line
program I can generate a version for other platforms than just windows.
Does anyone have a need for a version on a unix etc ?
Cheers,
P.
Paul G Clarke
WebSphere MQ Development
IBM
Paul,
A version on AIX would be very useful.
Thanks,
Tim Crossland
http://www.solent-consultancy.com
Thanks T.Rob, glad to be of service.
I forgot to mention in my previous append that since this is a command line
program I can generate a version for other platforms than just windows.
Does anyone
Alan, having to issue a REFRESH command at every QM startup is a bit hokey
as well. ;-) Seems like you have an unresolved problem too that you are
getting around with a band-aid solution.
-Original Message-
From: Bender, Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Thanks again Paul.
For us, versions for AIX Solaris would be _very_ much appreciated.
Cheers,
Alan
-Original Message-
From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Clarke
Sent: 21 September 2004 16:05
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MQSC client - MO72
Thanks
Hi Paul,
For us, a version for Linux and Solaris we be very helpful.
Thanks a MILLION for all your hard work on this.
Bill C.
-Original Message-
From: Lovett, Alan J [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MQSC client - MO72
Thanks for the offer! Solaris would be key for us.
-- T.Rob
-Original Message-
From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul
Clarke
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MQSC client - MO72
Thanks T.Rob, glad to be of service.
I
Refer to T Robs note that quotes the manuals as saying this is a
requirement. I wouldn't think it would have to work this way, but that
is what the manual says and is backed up by our experience.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bender,
Dean,
Check out the doc for the CICS bridge, paying particular attention to
the DPL design (as opposed to the 3270 emulation stuff). It's an
example of a Service Initiation Layer (SIL), which is powerful for
processing queues in a transaction based environment. The SIL is a long
running task
Ok,ok, you can stop now. Silly of me to assume there might be a preference
but you guys want it all :-
AIX
Solaris
Linux
Oh, well, saves me having to make an HP one I guess.
Cheers,
P.
Paul G Clarke
WebSphere MQ Development
IBM Hursley
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel : External +44 (1962)
The interpretation of that one paragraph is disputed by the QUEUE
MANAGER CLUSTERS manual in chapter 3 where the setup of a cluster is
explained in detail. After defining a Receiver channel you define the
Sender channel to one of the full repository queue managers. The idea
of defining sender
Thanks for all the input. We're not using the bridge now. Can it be used for
one application or is it an all for one type of thing ?
-Original Message-
From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Miller,
Dennis
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 12:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My experience is that you *need* to have explicitly defined cluster sender
and receiver channels between all the FULL repositories, and that if you
don't you will run into this sort of problem.
You shouldn't need to explicitly define clussdr channels from the full
repositories to the other
Scott,
The quote and link I provided apply specifically to *full* repositories. The idea
behind that was for Tony to make absolutely sure the full repositories were in synch
before trying to diagnose the partials. If the full repositories are not
synchronized, there is no basis to think the
So in my cluster, I have 2 groups (each group is in a separate data
center) of 12 queue managers. Each group has 2 full repos's defined,
with channels defined across groups to ensure that the cluster works as
a whole.
If I understand correctly, does this mean that on Repos-A, I have to
define a
What about the mainframe?
-Original Message-
From: Paul Clarke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MQSC client - MO72
Ok,ok, you can stop now. Silly of me to assume there might be a preference
but you guys want it all :-
If all these QMs are in 1 cluster, then all you need is 2 Full Repositories,
with manual CLUSSNDRS defined between them. Those extra Full Repositories
are just that, extra. No need for them, unless you put FR #1 and FR #2 on
servers that are both down frequently, but why would you do that?
iSeries...??
Joan Hughes
IT Technical Specialist
IBM Certified System Administrator - WebSphere MQ, v5.3
608-827-3523
=
Paul Clarke
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBM.COM
Yes, and in fact looking back at my notes the QMs in question were in
fact all full repositories rather than partials. Sorry for the
confusion. This is what I get for drinking all that cough medicine on
my way to work.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: MQSeries List [mailto:[EMAIL
I agree that in one sense having 4 full repos's is unecesary, the reason
for the redundancy is that each group needs to be able to operate in the
event of the loss of the other group (loss of a data center for
instance). This way each group always has two full repos's available.
tonyB.
Paul, you know that by the time the week is out, you will have requests for
every platform that MQ runs on.
-Original Message-
From: Luc-Michel Demey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 5:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MQSC client - MO72
Date sent:
Willow Technology offers a version of MQ for the SCO UnixWare operating
system that they claim is fully compliant with WebSphere MQ V5.0 CSD06.
Does anyone out there have any experience with the Willow Technology
product.
Gale Dillehay
Consultant, IT Technology
Sears, Roebuck, and Co.
The manuals only say to create the channels manually FROM the partial TO
only ONE of the fulls. No other channels need to be manually defined in a
properly working cluster.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 10:24 AM
To:
31 matches
Mail list logo
