IBM MQ Reviews

It's rock solid. It just works. We have to have guaranteed delivery and support. Support is solid as well, knowing that IBM is there. We looked at some open-source products and other competitors, and at the time that we made the decision, IBM was the one that had the largest support structure. Rock-solid performance really is the most solid feature of it.

We had to integrate different systems and MQ allowed us to send messages between systems and guarantee delivery. What that did is allow us to more easily integrate those systems and feel 100% trust in this solution.

From an MQ perspective, if they had some built-in monitoring, built-in dashboards, maybe some web-enabled functions so we don't have to load specific tools on our workstations. The training and scalability clustering could be a little bit easier. They could also make it failover- and fault-tolerant. The training aspect is a big part. I think IBM maybe has some work to do on the training side a little bit.

Stability is great. Stability is rock solid. We have very few issues with it.

Scalability: We're a smaller shop so we don't have the resources necessarily to take care of it. Scaling out MQ is possible, but it's not as easy as some other products. It's not as easy as other technologies even.

We were not previously using a different solution. The business challenged the pattern we used. Using queuing and messaging presented itself as the best solution.

When choosing a vendor, we want support, access to information, solid products, and, hopefully, building blocks where we can build on and use other products and foundation.

Setup was more complex than what I thought it might be. We have an active-active cluster, meaning that the systems will fail over to each other if they need to. It was more complicated to set up. We had difficulties setting that up initially, even with consultant help.

I would go back to the rock solid performance. If you can get through the setup and the learning curve with the product, it will just run and work for you. That would be the advice I would give.

Stability and reliability are the most valuable features. It's very reliable and very stable. You can do a fast recovery in case of any failure. It's a very consistent and stable system.

The whole integration channel between PowerVM and third-party applications goes through MQ. This is why MQ plays the role of middleware, of integration, and it helps us to quickly integrate all applications around PowerVM.

One possible area with room for improvement is some integration with the alert system to alert us in case of any failure of any message to be transmitted from one source to another; maybe that could help. It doesn't do that right now.

We will see how MQ will help us when we go to cloud, one day.

It’s very stable.

We have never faced any problem with upgrading or scalability between MQ series and the IBM the PowerVM. It's good.

Once you install MQ, you don't need a lot of support. Of course, we have support with an IBM partner in our country, but up until now, we have never faced a major issue that could impact our business.

Implementation was very straightforward.

Our environment is 60% IBM. We did not shop to search for another solution.

In general, though, the most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with are support, response time, credibility, to be near to us, and that they are not working from the cloud.

In a financial institution, for very critical applications, when you invest, you have to invest one time. You don't have time to redo the work over and over. When you build your setup, your infrastructure, to do your service and your financial service for mission-critical applications, you have to choose the best-of-breed application that supports you. This is why we choose IBM without any hesitation.

We have never faced any problem. It works fine.

We are a bank, and regulations restrict us from using the cloud, at this point. We're using MQ only on our data center.

Obviously, the biggest thing is that we’ll never lose a message. We use it for a lot of real-time information between our systems for integration, where we cannot lose data during that point in time, because then we lose track of inventory, our manufacturing systems, sales orders and things like that.

It's reliable. It's a solid foundation. It’s always up and running. MQ doesn't crash on us. It gives us the stability of the platform to be able to do all of the integration between our applications.

The user interface might be an area with room for improvement, but we use MQ Explorer and that helps solve a lot of our problems there.

On my test systems, I have over 150 queues; maybe a better way to manage those and to see them visually instead of just one long list.

We started using MQ back in 1996.

It’s up 24/7.

We haven't had any scalability issues. We keep adding more applications to it all the time.

We use technical support only when there are problems, which is very rare. It's always been good when I've had to call them; responsive, efficient.

I was partially involved in the decision process to invest in MQ. We were not previously using something else. We were actually early adopters, really and truly. We started using MQ back in 1996. We've been using it ever since then.

Initial setup was straightforward.

At that time, there were no other vendors on our shortlist.

The most important criteria for you when selecting a vendor to work with is obviously that it is a stable company; a vendor that will be around for a while. Those kinds of things.

Take a look at it. It's well worth the effort to play with it and to understand it.

The multiple queuing features, so that everything that we use for talking to our reservation system, the main system we use it for; whatever systems that are sitting on Linux or other environments such as AIX, and then talking to iSeries, which is our “mother ship”, the reservation system. The most valuable features are being able to handle those multiple queues and being able to scale properly.

Before we used MQ, basically it was more of a batch job, sending and receiving messages; kind of like an upload, download type of thing. Now, it's real time, where we can effectively handle millions of transactions an hour, once we implemented MQ.

My only thing for improvement would be the way that we've got it configured. I don't know if it's capabilities and using those capabilities. I feel that we installed it a little bit, say, out of the box. There's a different way we could set up some queue management, that we could do better. It's partly us, but probably using some outside resources to look at our transaction volume and flow. We set it up probably eight years ago and we haven't really changed it since. Our business has changed.

I would just like it to be more resilient. In that area, if there is something that happens, it would alert us better or reset itself automatically, which is the greatest thing, where it tells you, "Hey, there's a problem, but by the way, I've already taken care of it. Just so you know. " That's where I see we've had to do more application monitoring around that to do the actual queue management; understanding that something is wrong. It could help us do that. I lose sleep at night, because of, if we have issues.

It is extremely stable.

Scalability is fantastic, basically because of the Power Systems. It scales along with whatever environment it's sitting on.

We've had problem tickets and things that we've called in to analyze issues. The good part is that it never really was an MQ issue. It was some other issue that came out, but we would get them involved and they would be able to diagnose. It helped us a lot.

Their response was quick; very quick response and very detailed response. Basically, they usually do captures, send in the data and do the analysis. Usually, within 24 hours, we got the information back we needed.

They were really just doing batch file uploads, downloads; probably a couple different things versus MQ. It was a big implementation from IBM. They partnered with us, also to help us. We also started slow and then used it in other areas as well.

I highly recommend it, but I also highly recommend getting services with the actual product to make sure it's implemented correctly.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is truly being a partner; taking a little bit of the ownership; not just reading from the book of suggestions – because we can read that same book – but really understanding all of our environments, how we do business, make recommendations and implement them. That is important: not just making recommendations; doing it.

It's fairly easy to set up and configure. It's very effective as far as what we need to do with the type of processing that we're trying to get done, message-based processing. It is easily replicate-able. We have tons of servers that actually handle different queues; it's very helpful with that.

In conjunction with some other products we use, such as IIB, it does a lot of the transformation. It cuts out a lot of programming that has to be done for transforming data from our carrier customers into the format that we need it to be. That's really one of the big benefits.

There is room for improvement with the price. It's actually not really one of the high-priced items, but everything's relative.

I'm not really sure that there's a lot that we could really think of that we would need above and beyond where we are today, and the way we use it.

What would be nice is some kind of a built-in monitor. That would be something that'd be really helpful; some kind of a performance-type monitor. I know there is one, but it should be built-in. It should be automatic.

Or, a particular queue manager; that would be really helpful, I think.

It's extremely stable. We very seldom have any issue with it. We have it clustered between z/OS and zLinux. We've never had any serious problem with it.

It is easily scalable; very scalable. We can scale both internally in a virtual machine – the size of a queue or a number of queues – and it's also across multiple virtual machines. We use it both ways to scale up.

On z/OS, queue managers are very easy for us to generate and build new ones if we need to or multiple queues on the same queue managers; it’s a very effective tool.

We have occasionally used technical support for MQ, if we really run into an issue. That has worked out pretty well. As a matter of fact, most of the time, for any kind of an issue, we've usually had it resolved within a day. That's the way we want it.

The decision to invest in MQ was made prior to my starting at the company I'm at. I can't take claim for that. I was at another site, and we weren't using MQ at that other site.

I'm a director and me and my team were involved in the initial set up of MQ. It was very straight forward. We had people that were familiar with it. Some of the people that I worked with, or that worked for me, really had a good background, so it went very quickly, and it was very straight forward.

One of the things that we've been asked about is using open-source message queuing alternatives. One of the things we've always fallen back on is that we like the IBM support; we like the release. We don't want to have to worry as much about the levels of software; IBM already takes care of that. It integrates with the other products that we're using. All of those things kind of play together, especially in our case; we're a very big WebSphere Application Server, and as I’ve mentioned, a very big IIB server as well. It's really important that they all work and play together.

I’ve had really very little trouble with it. It's very effective. I don't think on either side, z/OS or zLinux, we've really had any trouble with it to speak of. Sometimes when we do some of the clustering things, we've run into questions or we run into things.

In general, it's been very, very solid.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is that they're established; that we're not going to be concerned with, "They're here today, and gone tomorrow."

Probably one of the bigger criteria, nowadays, is the ability to support the software. We know we're going to run into trouble. We know we're going to have problems. We know we're going to have questions. We want to make sure that we have a vendor that can support us at that point.

Our primary use case for IBM MQ is as an enterprise messaging between applications. So when applications need to transmit data from one to another, they use a messaging broker, the IBM MQ, RabbitMQ and ActiveMQ.

We have found the MQ messaging topologies valuable mainly the published, subscribe and direct messaging. A feature that no other market could offer at the time was data-addressed encryption.

The clustering model can be improved to allow consumers to consume from all brokers simultaneously. Currently, the issue is that they're using a very old clustering model where several of the individual brokers in the same cluster still behave as individuals rather than behaving like a cluster. They call it a cluster, but it's just a group of brokers not working as a cluster. It doesn't properly share the resources between all of the member clusters. Compared to other solutions like Apache Kafka, or RabbitMQ, this is a huge drawback.

We have been using the solution for approximately nine years, deploying it on public, private cloud and on-premises.

The solution is stable.

The solution is not easily scalable. 

Technical support is tough to connect with because the training and documentation from IBM are awful and the technical support from IBM is also poor. So it's easier to solve your issue using Google rather than calling support at IBM.

The initial setup was a bit complex. The installation itself can take anywhere from half an hour to four hours, and the configuration could also take a couple of hours, depending on the complexity of the design.

The solution is expensive.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good, but the clustering model can be improved. My advice to others considering the solution is to check other products on the market and ensure their product of choice complies with everything they need. They should go for IBM MQ but ensure they carefully read the terms and conditions and view the price beforehand. Alternatively, if they want to go with a more lightweight solution that is just as reliable, they should review RabbitMQ.

The methodology and the way in which the platform has been produced as a standard is most valuable. There are so many different versions of it now, but the actual basic functionality and the simplicity of it have made it far easier to be implemented in so many different instances. When I worked with the OS/2 or PS/2 machine environment, the messaging mechanisms were based upon IBM MQ. It is so versatile, which is the main reason that I'm a fan of it. 

There are things within the actual product itself that can be improved, such as limitations on message length, size, etc. There is no standardized message length outside of IBM. Each of the implementations of the MQ series or support of that functionality varies between various suppliers, and because of that, it is very difficult to move from one to the other. We have IBM MQ, but we couldn't use it because the platform that was speaking to MQ didn't support the message length that was standard within IBM MQ. So, we had to use a different product to do exactly the same thing. So, perhaps, there could be more flexibility in the standards around the message queue. If we had been able to increase the message queue size within the IBM MQ implementation, we wouldn't have had to go over to another competing product because the system that was using MQ messaging required the ability to hold messages that were far larger than the IBM MQ standard. So, there could be a bit more flexibility in the structuring. It has as such nothing to do with the IBM implementation of MQ. It is just that the standard that is being put out onto the market doesn't actually stipulate those types of things. As a result, rather than following the recommendations and the standard that was within the IBM MQ implementation, some suppliers say that we need the ability to have longer message lengths than they've implemented, but that's the way it is. Other than that, I'm very pleased with it as it is. It is good at doing what it does. I love the actual implementation, and I've used it a lot.

I've been using IBM MQ since it came along. We've got a lot of different platforms. We have IBM MQ. We have had BizTalk, IMMQ, WebSphere, and WebLogic platforms, but we're moving very much into the cloud.

The support that we have goes through third-party vendors. In the past, their support has been very good, but I can't say anything about it today. About 15 years ago, in the companies I was working with as a consultant, we had very good support. We were working very closely with IBM, and IBM implemented the PS/2 and OS/2 operating system together with Microsoft. The implementation there in terms of the connectivity was an implementation of the IBM MQ series in the OS/2 operating system, PS/2 environment. The support we received for that work back in the late '80s was fantastic.

The initial setup is usually left to other people to do. I've never actually done the installation and setup of it myself. It has been other people with a bit more deep technical knowledge who have done the implementation and actual installations. It was a very long time ago when I received the first set of CDs where we were going to be doing the installation of it, but I don't have that deep technical knowledge of the implementation as such.

I think it's pretty reasonable, but I'm not so too sure of the current pricing strategy from IBM. We use many bundled services, and most often, we go through a service provided by some other third-party implementation. So, I can't really give an honest opinion about that.

I would rate IBM MQ an eight out of 10.

IBM WebSphere MQ is deployed on a Windows machine, as well as almost all of our infrastructure. Windows services read and write to the MQ server - this is the way that we interact with it. All the messages that we put on the queue are also stored in an SQL Databases. A Windows service reads that message from the SQL Database storage and puts it on a queue on a certain channel; these Windows services are running indefinitely, on a loop so any message is read instantly. 

The solution is very easy to work with.

The solution is very stable, it also offers transaction management and support.

The solution offers very good integration with other services. It's one of the great advantages of the service.

We have had it for a long time now - version 7.1, which is not the latest. 

The admin interface of MQ Explorer that is used to interact with the server seems a little bit dated. It makes it somehow difficult to interact with it. It needs a major update to make it more modern and easy to navigate, maybe a web version.

The solution isn't free. There are other solutions, like RabbitMQ, which are open source and absolutely free to use. This open source solution we use it for non-critical processes.

IBM offers a special version that you need to get if you want to transfer files, especially large files. Maybe it should be included in any version.

We've been using the solution for a very long time. It's been at least a decade - about ten years.

The stability of the solution is good. We've never run into any issues.

IBM MQ offers clustering. We don't have this yet, as it hasn't been implemented, however, I know that you can install it in a cluster of servers. 

My understanding is RabbitMQ is also easier to scale. I'm unsure as to how well IBM can scale in comparison.

I've never contacted technical support in the past. I can't speak to their level or service due to the fact that I've never directly dealt with them.

We're also using RabbitMQ. While IBM is more stable, RabbitMQ is easier to work with. 

We've been trying to change our architecture, and RabbitMQ is more appropriate for us as it's easier to put together with microservices.

While I was part of the process for implementing RabbitMQ, which was very simple and straightforward, in the case of IBM, I didn't install it myself. Unfortunately, I cannot explain how easy or difficult it was as I was not part of the experience. My understanding is it's not too difficult.

In terms of maintenance, we have two people from the support team handling that aspect. They can restart the server or look into the queues. They aren't working in shifts, however, if there are issues, one of them is normally available to troubleshooting.

In comparison, for RabbitMQ, we had only one developer that installed it and created the publishers, workers etc. I believe the support will be the same as for IBM. In both cases, there aren't too many people needed for maintenance.

I'd recommend the solution. It's a very stable solution and very resilient. 

If there is not essential data that needs to be transported between services, then I would go for a RabbitMQ, because it's easier in style, and it's free to use. On top of that, you can have it to wrap around everything in a straightforward way.

That said, I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. We've used it for a number of years and it's always worked very well for us.