sonic software websphere mq competitive overview bob trabucchi

Sonic SoftwareSonic SoftwareWebSphere MQ Competitive Overview

Bob Trabucchi

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation2

AgendaAgenda

MQSeries 5.2 Competitive Postmortem

WebSphereMQ 5.3

Competing against WebSphere MQ 5.3

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation3

IBM MQSeriesIBM 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 Corporation5

MQSeries 5.2 LandminesMQSeries 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 Corporation6

Reality CheckReality 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 Corporation7

Reality CheckReality Check

Performance is still king!

Security and guaranteed delivery are extremely important.

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation8

AgendaAgenda

MQSeries 5.2 Competitive Postmortem

WebSphereMQ 5.3

Competing against Websphere MQ 5.3

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation9

Scope of workScope 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 Corporation10

MQSeries 5.3MQSeries 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

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation11

WebSphere MQ OOBEWebSphere 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 Corporation12

WebSphere MQ ExplorerWebSphere MQ Explorer

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation13

SonicMQ ExplorerSonicMQ Explorer

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation14

WebSphere MQ 5.3 weaknessWebSphere 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 Corporation15

Java is an still and afterthoughtJava 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 Corporation16

WebSphere MQ 5.3 weaknessWebSphere 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 Corporation17

MQSeries TerminologyMQSeries 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 Corporation18

WebSphere MQ PTP JMS ArchitectureWebSphere MQ PTP JMS Architecture

Sender ReceiverQueue

Manager

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation19

WebSphere MQ 5.3 Pub/Sub JMS ArchitectureWebSphere MQ 5.3 Pub/Sub JMS Architecture

Publisher Subscriber

Queue

Manager

Broker

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation20

WebSphere MQ 5.3 Pub/Sub JMS ArchitectureWebSphere MQ 5.3 Pub/Sub JMS Architecture

Publisher Subscriber

Queue

Manager

Broker

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation21

Pub/Sub Broker responsibilitiesPub/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 Corporation22

Pub/Sub Broker vs. Queue managerPub/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 Corporation23

WebSphere MQ Broker NetworkWebSphere MQ Broker Network

PublisherSubscriber

Queue

Mgr 1

Broker

Queue

Mgr 2

Broker

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation24

AgendaAgenda

MQSeries 5.2 Competitive Postmortem

WebSphereMQ 5.3

Competing against Websphere MQ 5.3

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation25

Where do we win?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 Corporation26

Performance: Where do we win?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 Corporation27

Security: Where do we win?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 Corporation28

Clustering: Where do we win?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 Corporation29

Where do we lose?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 Corporation30

Where do we lose?Where do we lose?

SonicMQ performance is benchmarked using:– Connection time

– Small numbers of messages

– Small message sizes

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation31

SonicMQ vs. MQSeries win!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 Corporation32

OnStarOnStar

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

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation33

From the lab……..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 Corporation34

SonicMQ V4.0 v MQ Series 5.3SonicMQ 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

1500Non Persistent

1k 10k

MQSeries 5.3 SonicMQ 4.0Message Size

Point-to-Point

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation35

SonicMQ V4.0 v MQ Series 5.3SonicMQ V4.0 v MQ Series 5.3

Persistent

0 1k 10k

MQSeries 5.3 SonicMQ 4.0 Message Size

2000

4000

6000

8000Non Persistent

1k 10k

MQSeries 5.3 SonicMQ 4.0Message Size

Pub/Sub

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

© 2002, Sonic Software Corporation36

Recap: Where we win……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 Corporation37

Still to come……..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 SoftwareSonic SoftwareWebSphere MQ Competitive Overview

Bob Trabucchi