it_user631758 - PeerSpot reviewer
MQV Admin at Allstate
Real User
When you're doing maintenance, you can fail over the entire group of queue managers in that HA group or you can fail them individually if you'd like.

What is most valuable?

I like its ease of administration. We just recently moved to the MQ appliance and the high availability (HA) feature is outstanding. We're really, really pleased with it and the power of the appliance itself. When you throw more work at it, the faster it goes.

For example, when you're doing maintenance, you can fail over the entire group of queue managers in that HA group or you can fail them individually if you'd like. So, it's very helpful that way. But that's the manual fail over. The automatic fail over is what we are really interested in. We did have an appliance go down. Everything failed over and none of our clients knew of it. So it was very good. We were very pleased with that.

The user interface is good. The command line version of it, MQ CLI, is good. The web user interface is really handy; really a good feature.

How has it helped my organization?

It updated everything. We started with Version 7 with Linux and now, with the appliance, it seems to be bringing us more into the 21st century so to speak.

What needs improvement?

We have an M2000. The M2001 has a 3 TB SSD, which is a good feature. I wish they had had it when I started. But as we upgrade, in the future, we'll probably move to that. Everything is working properly with the current version.

The reason the migrations are an issue is, we came from Version 7.01 and Version 7.5. The security in Version 8 was a little tighter. So, there were a few things we had to learn. Be sure that we were up to speed, so that's all.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We haven’t had any stability problems at all. Stability has been outstanding. We went from multi-instance queue managers, which worked fine, except they worked often. That wasn't good for us. So it was a perceived outage for our clients. The availability has been outstanding with the MQ appliance.

Buyer's Guide
IBM MQ
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about IBM MQ. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.

How are customer service and support?

I have used support on several occasions. We were an early adopter, and there are always a few bugs along the way. We did use technical support and we went all the way up to the lab a couple of times. It was outstanding as usual.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We have been an MQ adopter since 1998. We were using z/OS, so we have been using MQ along the way. Then we went to Windows, to Unix, to Linux, and now the appliance.

How was the initial setup?

Actually, setup was straightforward. I'm not a hardware person and it was a first-time setup. It was what they said it was. It wasn't a 30-minute setup, but it was pretty easy.

What other advice do I have?

Plan your file systems. Plan your messaging names and your network routes. You want to be ready with everything before you start and once you do that, you're in good shape.

When choosing a vendor, I want knowledge and availability. Those are the two things that are most important.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
ExaminerExaminer at a financial services firm with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Detailed documentation, highly stable, and plenty of features
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable feature of IBM MQ is it has all the features necessary for contemporary messaging, not only for the financial industry but for any application."
  • "IBM MQ could improve by adding more protocols or APIs for a standard application, such as MuleSoft."

What is our primary use case?

IBM MQ is the standard for financial industry messaging. As far as I know, it is the best in class.

How has it helped my organization?

Standard, most reliable messaging infrastructure software.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature of IBM MQ is it has all the features necessary for contemporary messaging, not only for the financial industry but for any application.

IBM MQ has developed into some newer solutions. It has a message broker, it is now on the cloud, it has containerization, that has high availability features

What needs improvement?

IBM MQ may not be as convenient for Java programmers as Active MQ, for example, because Java programmers prefer Java, even though it is slower.

IBM MQ could improve by adding more protocols or APIs for a standard application, such as MuleSoft.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM MQ for approximately 15 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

IBM MQ is stable, performs well, and is highly reliable. They guarantee message delivery.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability of IBM MQ is good. There are cluster, container, and broker features available. It scales well horizontally and vertically.

Most of our company is using IBM MQ in my company.

How are customer service and support?

The support from IBM MQ is good. They have always helped with my problems, but sometimes it can take them a while for a resolution. Sometimes you might find a bug in a one-year span of using the solution, but they will provide a fix within a matter of weeks.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

N/A

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup of IBM MQ can be straightforward if you have the documentation, it is step-by-step and straightforward.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

IBM MQ is an expensive solution compared to other solutions. However, if you pay less you will not receive the same experience or features.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

N/A

What other advice do I have?

It may not have all the APIs, features, or protocols that the newest systems have, but in performance and reliability, it is the best.

The amount of people needed to maintain the solution depends on the company and how they want to maintain it. When I was working for a bank I supported 300 MQ managers with approximately 150 systems running. However, for the basic use of the solution, you do not need many people. If you add more features, such as broker and clustering you will need more people for maintenance.

My advice to others is this solution is the best there is. For maintenance, you will probably need fewer people to maintain it than other solutions because of its reliability. The features are probably the most extensive in its class.

I rate IBM MQ a ten out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
IBM MQ
March 2024
Learn what your peers think about IBM MQ. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2024.
765,234 professionals have used our research since 2012.
It division head at MOI kuwait
Real User
Top 20
An easy-to-use and stable solution that can be used for message queuing
Pros and Cons
  • "IBM MQ is an easy-to-use and stable solution."
  • "I would like less updates from IBM MQ."

What is our primary use case?

IBM MQ is used for message queuing. IBM MQ is used if applications exchange messages and need a queue in between to hold them.

What is most valuable?

IBM MQ is an easy-to-use and stable solution.

What needs improvement?

I would like less updates from IBM MQ.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using IBM MQ for ten years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

I rate IBM MQ ten out of ten for stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I rate IBM MQ ten out of ten for scalability.

How are customer service and support?

There was no delay from IBM MQ's technical support, and they had a good response time.

How was the initial setup?

The solution's initial setup is easy.

What other advice do I have?

I am using the latest version of IBM MQ. I would recommend IBM MQ to other users.

Overall, I rate IBM MQ ten out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
PeerSpot user
Solutions Director at Thesys Technologies
Real User
Reliable and stable software with good integration but the file transfer process needs improvement
Pros and Cons
  • "A stable and reliable software that offers good integration between different systems."
  • "Sometimes, not all messages are consumed in the queues. File transfers need improvement."

What is our primary use case?

We're using the IBM MQ series in development, integration, UAT, and production areas.

What is most valuable?

What I found most valuable in this software is its reliability because messages that are sent into the queues are consumed by the other end of the connectivity. It has helped us maintain integration between two different systems, so that has been part of one of the layers of our architecture that communicates, for example, a back-end platform and back-end core system with a front-end platform. In our case, we are using the backend as a 224 banking system and the frontend we are using the Wall Street front office system. Those two systems are interconnected via the IBM MQ series.

What needs improvement?

An area for improvement for this software is that sometimes, messages are not consumed in the queues. We have seen queues where not all messages are emptied. That issue has been solved by our IBM team located in Spain, but we haven't received detailed technical information as to why those queues are not totally consumed. A probable reason could be some service and availability issue because of server updates in IBM MQ itself, or server updates related to the operating system, which in our case, we are using Red Hat Linux.

I have seen a lot of problems with the file transfers, e.g. using FTP or SFTP or LFTP. Normally with all these kinds of transfers, they are not on a transaction boundary, meaning a transfer can fail during the execution. We are not certain why it hasn't reached the destination as these protocols are not transactional which you normally have in MQ messages. What I would like to see in the next release is a solution for the MQ file transfer. I saw some literature about it, but I am not sure if the feature is available, or if it will be easy to configure and maintain in the bank.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've used IBM MQ within the last year. We've being using it on a continuous basis because it is the secure platform we have in our banking system.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

IBM MQ is very stable. It's the best server in terms of interconnectivity. The reliability that the MQ series has, I haven't seen in other servers that are also based in MQ.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

My impression of the scalability of this software: We started with a very easy installation where we have very few queues defined. Then, we had a huge integration where we applied, pulled, and observed that the scalability is very straightforward. We also found an easy way: making an active-passive configuration automatic. For example: If you have one active server going down, the passive server is switched on automatically, without us needing to do anything from our end, which means the active-passive configuration works properly.

How are customer service and support?

I haven't been involved in contacting IBM's support, but in general, we didn't have any vendor issues.

How was the initial setup?

The setup for this software was very complex, particularly with the integration between the two systems I was talking about earlier: on the core backend and on the user frontend that is the Wall Street system. It has a lot of different types of flows, and all those flows are defined into the server that is called TTI that is working under the MQ series. That contains a lot of complexities because the vendor of the front-end system has included in the MQ side the server functionality for the application, instead of doing it directly in either the backend or the frontend. This means the MQ part is also helping with the logic for processing messages, and the logic is maintained in a layer: the MQ layer in the server that's called TTI. This is the first time we have faced such complexity, but regarding the MQ as is, meaning the vanilla version, it is quite straightforward. That server works the proper way.

What about the implementation team?

We used consultants for the implementation and those were consultants from the vendor who were already experienced in the TTI server.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The licensing for this software is on a yearly basis, but the bank is holding just one license for the entire bank: a corporate license. As for additional costs, it's a standard fee that includes the maintenance and updates that are released periodically.

What other advice do I have?

I didn't download Active MQ and IBM MQ. I was checking on the website because I wanted to know certain functionalities about those two series. So what I downloaded was the literature about their functionalities.

Regarding IBM products, the only one that I was working with was the MQ series.

All products in our organization, particularly the banking systems are on-premise. We are not yet ready to do cloud deployment.

Deployment of this software in the TTI part took three months. For the core part, deployment took approximately one month. The time that it took for deployment is also associated with the number of servers that we had.

We have four groups: development, integration, user acceptance test, and production. In each of these groups, they have their own MQ servers. We started with the installation for the development group, then going forward and solving the issues we found at the beginning with the installation instructions. We continued with the other areas until we reached the production server recently, back in mid-October.

We currently have 200 users of this software.

Deployment of the IBM MQ at core requires two people in our organization, but for the personalized application or the customized one, we have 10 people.

I'm rating this software a five because it is quite expensive and complex. I'm giving this a five over ten rating not just because it runs, but because it has a lot of features.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Senior Technical Lead at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Scalable and reliable but needs action log statistical information
Pros and Cons
  • "The solution is very stable."
  • "The main issue we are having with the solution is due to the connection dropouts which have been going on for a long time now."

What is our primary use case?

We use the solution as a messenger software, in order to send messages to various applications.

What needs improvement?

The main issue we are having with the solution is due to the connection dropouts which have been going on for a long time now. Sometimes randomly the connection gets disconnected and we try to send a message, we get a failure. We then need to manually take an action on the message, which is happening quite a lot in production. We have been working together with the MQ team trying to increase the connection and some channel upgrades. We are taking steps in the right direction but the issue is not completely fixed.

Additionally, there is not any statistical messaging information being captured. We are not able to pull up any reports to determine when a message was sent. For example, how many messages during the day or during five minutes.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using the solution for 13 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is very stable. We have not had issues, except for the connection dropouts which could be related to the machine we are using.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is scalable. It is flexible because, for us, we used the solutions adapter to provide the connection parameters to send a message. This has been quite easy.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We have previously used and still do, Rabbit MQ, which is open-source. It is getting quite popular because it is also stable and it has a good UI. This UI allows us to check the messages with some statistical data.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

This solution requires a license and we have purchased an enterprise license.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend this solution. However, there are some emerging competitors on the market that provide a competitive alternative.

I rate IBM MQ a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user632802 - PeerSpot reviewer
Systems Manager at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
Vendor
Provides reliable, guaranteed message delivery.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature of this product is that it provides guaranteed message delivery. This is important for us because we want to have guaranteed message delivery and integrity; we cannot lose that message.

How has it helped my organization?

The reliability that it provides is the most beneficial aspect of this product for our organization.

What needs improvement?

One thing that I'd like to see is that queue-sharing should not depend on DB2. It should have this feature by itself, instead of depending on DB2.

In order to set up IBM MQ queue-sharing, DB2 data sharing is required in multiple LPARs. Thus, to make the implementation easy and straightforward, it will be nice if DB2 is not required for queue-sharing.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

In regards to the stability of the product itself, it's pretty good. However, it depends on the configuration as well. Overall, the stability is good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is pretty good as well and on the mainframe, we can expand it. That way, we're looking to carry out queue sharing, on the mainframe as well.

How is customer service and technical support?

The technical support is fine. MQ is very predictable product and it's good.

How was the initial setup?

I was involved in the initial setup, but not in this company; at a different company. I found that it was easy to install.

What other advice do I have?

This product is from IBM which is a very well-known company.

MQ is a reliable, easy to understand and install solution.

The most important criteria while selecting a vendor are that they should be well-known and the product's reliability. These are the main reasons as to why we chose IBM MQ.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user632739 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Engineer at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees
Vendor
Its versatility and portability are valuable features.

What is most valuable?

MQ is a very affordable and easy to use messaging product. I like how fast you can write an API and send a message. Thus, its versatility, portability and easy to use functionality are valuable features of this product.

How has it helped my organization?

We use MQ for our insurance claims and use it heavily for CICS in the IBM Mainframe and use the IBM IMS for our applications.

What needs improvement?

Right now, with the new functions such as z/OS & distributed, I don't see any need for additional features as such. This is because everything that MQ provides, we do it. It's okay right now. Things are working fine.

The migration aspect is different and it depends on who is doing it, i.e., whether a person is doing it for the first time or a person who has done it for 18 times. I have done a lot of migrations in MQ, starting from this product version 2 and now it is on version 9. I have done a lot of migrations, so it all depends on how much experience you have, how you set up your migration task and so on. Migration is fine. I don't see any problem there.

If IBM develops a tool inside the MQ product for monitoring, then that will be better for the other IBM products available.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using this solution for 17-18 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's a very stable product. Being one of IBM's high-end messaging solution, it's a very robust product.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have not had any issues. It is scalable.

How is customer service and technical support?

I use the technical support from time to time in Hursley because MQ is developed in Hursley. I keep in contact with Hursley developers because in my organization, we use MQ a whole lot for our messaging. I am very happy with the support.

What other advice do I have?

It is a good messaging product from IBM and is easy to use. It is very affordable and flexible, so I will advise other customers/companies to look into this product and use it.

The most important criteria while selecting a vendor are the customer support and easy to use the product. It is also important if the vendors can provide training to the staff and always be behind the customers to help them.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
it_user523131 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Project Manager - Infrastructure Delivery (Mainframe Services) at a hospitality company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Guaranteed delivery, even when there are disruptions.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the fact that it's guaranteed delivery; it's conversational. A lot of our transactions are basically transactions back and forth between either rewards members, reservations and even between our databases. MQ gives us guaranteed delivery.

How has it helped my organization?

We're an IBM mainframe user. It folds into our hardware very well. Our support is covered that way. It's kind of an end-to-end type solution. It works well with the distributed partners. We use WebSphere, so we can go ahead, plug things in and they work.

What needs improvement?

They might be able to improve the monitoring features. When you're looking at distributed platforms, you're looking at different breakpoints to it. MQ has a good support structure, but it would be nice if they could kind of fold MQ into other tools to make it more resilient for other tools, other relationships, and other non-IBM platforms.

That's probably the strongest piece: being able to support the other customers. Eventually, if we can support them end-to-end and tell them where their problems are, we can bring them into our fold and make it an IBM fold.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Stability is unrivaled. We've got no problems with it. It's like the mainframes. When you're looking at five nines for availability, it's there all the time. MQ is there all the time. If we have a problem, it's not part of the conversation. It's more of a case of a database on the other end that we're using as a repository is having a problem. You can go out there, store the messages, and guarantee delivery if there are any interruptions. It just works for us.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

It's plug and play. If you need more, you can figure it out on the fly; you can add end points to it. The fact that you can add connections makes it very easy for us, because a lot of times we'll run into an issue where we get spikes in connectivity. We can go ahead and define something on the fly. We can go ahead and throw in the extra conversation, and queues aren't a problem at either end. The fact that we can reduce queues by adding extra channels is a great plus for us.

How is customer service and technical support?

We have only rarely used technical support, because you don't really need it. When we have used it, it's been very good. The SLAs and everything that we've got for tech support is being met. We've also been using it long enough that we've got some very solid support, as far as, we know who to talk to and when to talk to. It's been great for us.

How was the initial setup?

I was not really involved in the initial setup. I was probably around for it, but I had an applications background. I went from the systems side to the applications side, and back to the systems side. It was kind of the interim period. I'm not really responsible for the MQ right now. I'm more of a user of MQ and a supporting group. As a mainframe user, we basically have that relationship with them.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

It's actually not a decision to use MQ, but maybe to expand MQ in some cases. It also is one of those places where you can't really go wrong by saying, “We're going to use MQ,” because it's proven.

The most important criteria for me when selecting a vendor to work with is probably stability. Relationships are important, but we're looking at up time. The better the up time is, the stronger we are, the better our product is, the better we are in front of customers. It used to be, when you were basically just facing other employees in the company, that's one experience. Now that you're facing the user with the dot-com boom, the world out there, everybody's on the end of a phone, our transaction counts have gone up exponentially. To have that relationship, and to have MQ being able to service what they service and support that expansion has been fantastic.

What other advice do I have?

Consider the pros and cons. For us, it’s reliability; it’s stability; it’s reputation. Do not get hung up on the fact that it is one of those "legacy"-type connectivities. A lot of people might not want to look at MQ, look at IBM or look at something because “that's the old way of doing things.” It's the current way of doing things. It's a leading-edge way of doing things, and the fact that it's there 100% of the time.

I'm not sure anybody’s perfect. They're very good at what they do. If they can play well with others, that's the real part of it right now. We're using WebSphere; we're using the mainframe; we're using the distributed side. As long as they can play with everybody, they're going to be a strong player. We'll be a strong proponent for them.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Download our free IBM MQ Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
Updated: March 2024
Buyer's Guide
Download our free IBM MQ Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.