[“The Broker Servers on a host do not have to be the same version of webMethods Broker.
The version of webMethods Broker installed on the host must match the highest version
among the Broker Servers you want to run. This makes it possible to run older versions of
the webMethods Broker, which is useful when the time comes to upgrade from one
version to another.”]
Can somebody please explain what these statements mean? It says the broker version must be the highest and at the same time says that older versions can also run. I’m kind of confused. Please share your thoughts.
I don’t know what the doc team was smoking when they wrote that but… When upgrading the awbrokermon process which controls the broker servers and handles the configurations of brokers, it should be upgraded first. Let’s say you are going to 6.5. Upgrade the 6.5 awbrokermon first. You can then have it control a mixture of 6.x broker servers. You can then upgrade them one at the time.
What the document is trying to say is that if you upgrade an individual broker server to say like 6.5, it can run the 6.x actual broker. Remember the broker server is not the actual broker. You can have multiple brokers under one broker server.
I highly recommend not doing that however especially if you are moving to 6.5. The broker data structure has changed with 6.5 and having the broker server at 6.5 and the actual broker at some over level is not good. Plus you will probably want to take advantage of the new data structure of the 6.5 broker.
They split out the meta-configuration data from the regular broker data so that you can do reliable hot backups without bringing down the broker server. The file structure separates these two out.
Suppose to be more reliable and reduce corruption. You still have the option of the single file storage. Once you go to the split out storage you cannot go back.
This thread and the “System Requirements” doc had me rethinking if I really understand Broker at all. Yikes. So I did some rereading of the docs to see if my brain had turned to mush or not.
Let’s start at the beginning. Terminology, straight from the Broker Admin Guide:
Broker host – The physical machine hosting the webMethods Enterprise Server Broker. A Broker host can host multiple Broker Servers.
Broker Server – A process (awbroker.exe) running on a Broker host. The core product of the webMethods Broker communication system that runs Brokers. Broker Servers are the delivery and administration hubs of document-based computing. Broker Servers can have multiple Brokers that share the same process and storage space.
Broker – [FONT=PalatinoLinotype][SIZE=2]A part of the Broker Server process, providing services such as receiving, queuing, and delivering documents. One or more Brokers can exist on a Broker Server. Each Broker can have any number of document types, client groups, and clients associated with it; they also share process and storage space with other Brokers. Brokers can be added to or leave territories.
[/size][/font]
Broker Monitor-- A process (awbrokermon.exe) whose sole purpose is to make sure that Broker Server(s) are running. If a Broker Server dies, Broker Monitor restarts it.
Brokers are not independent of Broker Server. I think part of the confusion is the sometimes loose and interchangeable use of “Broker Server” and “Broker” in the documentation.
So to answer Srini’s questions:
No.
No.
No.
No.
This is a doable scenario, though the Broker Server ports will need to be unique between the two. Broker Server 6.1 will have 6.1 Brokers and Broker Server 6.0.1 will have 6.0.1 Brokers.
6 & 7. Let me reword the question: Can Brokers from different Broker Server versions exist in the same territory? (Brokers in a territory do not need to be from the same Broker Server.) The answer is “it depends.” IIRC, 6.x Brokers can all peacefully coexist in a territory together. I believe 4.6 Brokers can coexist with 6.x Brokers in the same territory. But 4.1 Broker cannot (in the one case I’m thinking of, a 4.1 Broker in its own territory was gateway’d to a 6.5 gateway/territory–no errors during config but at run-time things went bad as 6.5 was not ack’ing 4.1 correctly so docs kept getting resent).
I may be off base on this territory part so someone please jump in if I am. A possible better way to go with different versions is to have homogeneous territories (all 6.0.1, 6.1, 6.5, etc. within each territory) and use gateways between them.
Given the info in my last post, let’s assess/reword the original quote that Srini asked about:
“The Broker Servers on a host do not have to be the same version of webMethods Broker.”
In other words, a single host can have multiple Broker Server instances and they can be of different versions. In this case, whomever wrote this appears to be using “Broker Server” (the technical name) and “webMethods Broker” (the product name, which covers more than Broker Server) interchangeably.
“The version of webMethods Broker installed on the host must match the highest version among the Broker Servers you want to run.”
To reword: “If you want to run a Broker Server 6.5 (the technical component), then install webMethods Broker 6.5 (the product).”
“This makes it possible to run older versions of the webMethods Broker, which is useful when the time comes to upgrade from one version to another.”
As Mark G. points out, the newest Broker Monitor can control older Broker Servers. If you need to run 6.5 and 6.1, run the 6.5 awbrokermon.exe instead of the 6.1 version to control both 6.5 and 6.1 Broker Servers.
Thank you Rob for your detailed analysis…
So the Broker always carry the version of it’s parent Broker Server. When we mean upgrading the Broker, it really means to upgrade the Broker Monitor and Broker Server. If we upgrade the Broker Server, does it automatically upgrade all Brokers that reside on it, or do we have to do some configuration also??
A Broker is a part of Broker Server. By way of analogy (probably a bad one) a Broker is to Broker Server as your fingers are to your hand. A Broker is a distinct entity but it is not independent of Broker Server.
When you upgrade using the option the wM docs refer to as “Broker x.x on top of x.x” all your exisiting configuration is retained. (The creation of a Broker on a Broker Server is a configuration activity.) You would not need to recreate any of your Brokers.
If you upgrade by using the “side by side” option, no configuration from the old Broker Server is reflected in the new Broker Server. You’d need to create your Broker’s and associated configurations separately.