WebSphere MQ 5.3 vs. SonicMQ 4.0 ... - Pelorustechnologies.com

watermelonroachdaleInternet and Web Development

Jul 30, 2012 (5 years and 16 days ago)

468 views

Sonic Software

WebSphere MQ Competitive Overview

Bob Trabucchi


© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

2

Agenda


MQSeries 5.2 Competitive Postmortem


WebSphereMQ 5.3


Competing against WebSphere MQ 5.3



© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

3

IBM MQSeries


65+% market share


Over 3,000 international customers


Integration for 35+ platforms


Considered ‘de facto’ standard for reliable
messaging


Currently used by most fortune 500
companies


© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

5

MQSeries 5.2 Landmines


Slow performance


High cost of ownership.


Limited Pub/Sub queue
-
based model


JMS wrapper


not integrated


Limited Internet usefulness


Mom product at core


Limited XML support

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

6

Reality Check


MOM product at the core can be a plus!


Proven track record


Fortune 500 have MQSeries expertise


doesn’t matter if it’s bogus to use.


MQSeries site licenses hide costs from
groups doing implementation.


Internet use to date is not a big
differentiator.

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

7

Reality Check


Performance is still king!


Security and guaranteed delivery are
extremely important.


© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

8

Agenda


MQSeries 5.2 Competitive Postmortem


WebSphereMQ 5.3


Competing against Websphere MQ 5.3



© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

9

Scope of work


Goals of 6 week effort:


Assume the role of customer and evaluate
the WebSphere MQ 5.3 experience.


Develop test harness to exercise both
products on a level playing field


Produce proof points that give sales force
improved competitive traction

Work in progress!

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

10

MQSeries 5.3


Beta released May 24
th
, 2002


Improved JMS specific performance


Improved security story


Allows

SSL
-
based encryption vs. 3
rd
-
party only


JMS fully integrated within product


Improved support for clustered queue managers


Workload balancing


Connection failover

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

11

WebSphere MQ OOBE


Building point
-
to
-
point, queue
-
based is
equally easy in both SonicMQ and
Websphere MQ products.


GUI Explorer tools


Create, start, stop queue managers


Create and manage queues

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

12

WebSphere MQ Explorer

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

13

SonicMQ Explorer

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

14

WebSphere MQ 5.3 weakness


Pub/Sub is still not integrated and
frustrating to use


No tutorials or documentation for Java


Supplemental download (uses same as 5.2)


Complete ‘add
-
on’ architecture


Not integrated with admin tools


Trouble shooting is cryptic


Using topics is problematic


No topic heirarchies


No cluster
-
wide topics

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

15

Java is an still and afterthought


Java is a second class citizen


Only two code samples


No Java
-
based tutorials


Sample Java pub/sub app doesn’t work in
some cases (without JNDI)


MQSeries.net JMS newsgroup is useless.



© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

16

WebSphere MQ 5.3 weakness


We still have much better performance


We still have a better security story


We still have a better clustering story

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

17

MQSeries Terminology


Queue Manager


creates, manages and
maintains queues


Clusters


grouping of queue managers that work
cooperatively.


Participants exchange messages via named
queues


Broker


a pub/sub server component that
creates, manages, and maintains topics


Broker network


cluster of pub/sub brokers


© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

18

WebSphere MQ PTP JMS Architecture

Sender

Receiver

Queue

Manager

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

19

WebSphere MQ 5.3 Pub/Sub JMS
Architecture

Publisher

Subscriber

Queue

Manager

Broker

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

20

WebSphere MQ 5.3 Pub/Sub JMS
Architecture

Publisher

Subscriber

Queue

Manager

Broker

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

21

Pub/Sub Broker responsibilities


Listen for publishers


Listen for subscribers


Maintain list of topics and subscribers


Maintain links with other brokers


Maintain links with queue manager

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

22

Pub/Sub Broker vs. Queue manager


Broker is a MQSeries application


Depends on Queue manager for all
persistent storage and queue functions.

Massive Overhead !!!

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

23

WebSphere MQ Broker Network

Publisher

Subscriber

Queue

Mgr 1

Broker

Queue

Mgr 2

Broker

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

24

Agenda


MQSeries 5.2 Competitive Postmortem


WebSphereMQ 5.3


Competing against Websphere MQ 5.3



© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

25

Where do we win?


Prospect needs:


Real
-
world publish/subscribe capabilities


Cares about high end performance


Worries about greater performance for
secure applications.


Wants reliable, pub/sub cluster capabilities


Lower TCO



© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

26


Performance: Where do we win?



High volume


Lots of concurrently connect clients


Lots of topics and queues


50+ is where the differences start to appear


The larger the message size, the better

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

27


Security: Where do we win?



Security topologies that must be highly
performant


Variety of cipher suites


Flexible encryption options:


Per message, message
-
payload


Prospects with tight firewall restrictions



© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

28


Clustering: Where do we win?



Pub/Sub environment


Broker network is no Queue Manager
cluster!


Topics are not cluster wide.


No load balancing


No failover


Where administration resources are
limited


Inflexible IP address hard coding required


© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

29

Where do we lose?


Prospect has:


MQSeries experts in house


MQSeries site license


Unlimited coding resources


Queue
-
based point
-
to
-
point application
requirements with small message sizes.


Total cost is of no concern



© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

30

Where do we lose?


SonicMQ performance is benchmarked
using:


Connection time


Small numbers of messages


Small message sizes





© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

31

SonicMQ vs. MQSeries win!





onStar is a actually a subsidiary of IBM, but they have
been successful in going against the IBM bias in the past


© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

32

OnStar


Replaced 3
rd

party


Organization open to 3
rd

party products


Primary use for pub/sub domain


Clustering environment


topics need to be available cluster
-
wide


parallel load balanced queue processing



C/C++ client


© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

33

From the lab……..


Test Harness


Modified to run against standard
WebSphere MQ 5.3 installation


Test Configuration


NT Server, 550 mhz, 4CPU


For QM, Broker’s etc.


2 NT 886 mhz, 2 CPU


1 to Receive/Subscribe


1 to Send/Publish

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

34

SonicMQ V4.0 v MQ Series 5.3

Persistent

0

1k

10k


MQSeries 5.3


SonicMQ 4.0

Message Size

200

600

1000

1400

0

500

1000

1500

Non Persistent

1k

10k


MQSeries 5.3


SonicMQ 4.0

Message Size

Point
-
to
-
Point

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

35

SonicMQ V4.0 v MQ Series 5.3

Persistent

0

1k

10k


MQSeries 5.3


SonicMQ 4.0

Message Size

2000

4000

6000

8000

Non Persistent

1k

10k


MQSeries 5.3


SonicMQ 4.0

Message Size

Pub/Sub

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

36

Recap: Where we win……


Need highly performant pub/sub with real
clustering capabilities


Performance critical architectures


Require security were there is currently
none.


Require security with high performance


TCO matters


© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation

37

Still to come……..


Competitive info for Websphere MQ is a
work in progress:


No durable subscription numbers


No reliability numbers/data


Need to test secure configurations


Need to test clustering capabilities


Sonic Software

WebSphere MQ Competitive Overview

Bob Trabucchi