1 / 37

Sonic Software

Sonic Software. WebSphere MQ Competitive Overview. Bob Trabucchi. Agenda. MQSeries 5.2 Competitive Postmortem WebSphereMQ 5.3 Competing against WebSphere MQ 5.3. IBM MQSeries. 65+% market share Over 3,000 international customers Integration for 35+ platforms

marnie
Télécharger la présentation

Sonic Software

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sonic Software WebSphere MQ Competitive Overview Bob Trabucchi

  2. Agenda • MQSeries 5.2 Competitive Postmortem • WebSphereMQ 5.3 • Competing against WebSphere MQ 5.3

  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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. Reality Check • Performance is still king! • Security and guaranteed delivery are extremely important.

  7. Agenda • MQSeries 5.2 Competitive Postmortem • WebSphereMQ 5.3 • Competing against Websphere MQ 5.3

  8. Scope of work Work in progress! • 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

  9. MQSeries 5.3 • Beta released May 24th, 2002 • Improved JMS specific performance • Improved security story • Allows SSL-based encryption vs. 3rd-party only • JMS fully integrated within product • Improved support for clustered queue managers • Workload balancing • Connection failover

  10. 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

  11. WebSphere MQ Explorer

  12. SonicMQ Explorer

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. WebSphere MQ PTP JMS Architecture Receiver Sender Queue Manager

  18. WebSphere MQ 5.3 Pub/Sub JMS Architecture Subscriber Publisher Broker Queue Manager

  19. WebSphere MQ 5.3 Pub/Sub JMS Architecture Publisher Subscriber Broker Queue Manager

  20. 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

  21. Pub/Sub Broker vs. Queue manager • Broker is a MQSeries application • Depends on Queue manager for all persistent storage and queue functions. Massive Overhead !!!

  22. WebSphere MQ Broker Network Broker Broker Queue Mgr 1 Queue Mgr 2 Publisher Subscriber New York Tokyo

  23. Agenda • MQSeries 5.2 Competitive Postmortem • WebSphereMQ 5.3 • Competing against Websphere MQ 5.3

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. Where do we lose? • SonicMQ performance is benchmarked using: • Connection time • Small numbers of messages • Small message sizes

  30. 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

  31. OnStar • Replaced 3rd party • Organization open to 3rd 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

  32. 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

  33. SonicMQ V4.0 v MQ Series 5.3 Point-to-Point Persistent Non Persistent 1400 1500 1000 1000 600 500 200 0 0 1k 10k 1k 10k Message Size Message Size SonicMQ 4.0 MQSeries 5.3 SonicMQ 4.0 MQSeries 5.3

  34. SonicMQ V4.0 v MQ Series 5.3 Pub/Sub Persistent Non Persistent 8000 8000 6000 6000 4000 4000 2000 2000 0 0 1k 10k 1k 10k Message Size Message Size SonicMQ 4.0 MQSeries 5.3 SonicMQ 4.0 MQSeries 5.3

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. Sonic Software WebSphere MQ Competitive Overview Bob Trabucchi

More Related