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


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


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


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.


Reality CheckReality Check

Performance is still king!

Security and guaranteed delivery are extremely important.


AgendaAgenda


WebSphereMQ 5.3

Competing against Websphere MQ 5.3


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!


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


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


WebSphere MQ ExplorerWebSphere MQ Explorer


SonicMQ ExplorerSonicMQ Explorer


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


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.


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


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


WebSphere MQ PTP JMS ArchitectureWebSphere MQ PTP JMS Architecture

Sender ReceiverQueue

Manager


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

Publisher Subscriber

Queue

Manager

Broker


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


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 !!!


WebSphere MQ Broker NetworkWebSphere MQ Broker Network

PublisherSubscriber

Queue

Mgr 1

Broker

Queue

Mgr 2

Broker


AgendaAgenda


WebSphereMQ 5.3

Competing against Websphere MQ 5.3


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


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


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


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


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


Where do we lose?Where do we lose?

SonicMQ performance is benchmarked using:– Connection time

– Small numbers of messages

– Small message sizes


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

sonic software websphere mq competitive overview bob trabucchi

Documents

n security

cryptic n

problematic n

n beta

agenda n mqseries

ibm mqseries n

product n pubsub

queue managers n