BizTalk Server General - MSMQT: appropriate for separating two orchestrations?

Author

MSMQT: appropriate for separating two orchestrations?

Ilya

2004-07-01, 5:52 pm

Architectural issue: we're having two separate
orchestrations for a single business transaction. They
are separate because we wanted to allow intermediate
messages to be stored somewhere, in case one of the
orchestrations fails temporarily, the other would proceed
normally. Now we have several options to connect them:
using file storage, direct invocation (won't work for the
reason above), and MSMQT output/input.

Do you think that using MSMQT would be justified given
that both orchestrations are deployed on the same box?

Would it be more justified if orchestrations were deployed
on separate boxes (for scalability)?

Would some other transport like Web Service be more
reasonable?

Michael Roze [MSFTF]

2004-07-01, 5:52 pm

Under high throughput scenarios orchestrations can be expensive.
It also depends on how complex your orchestrations are.

If it is low latency you need, I would not use MSMQT. Then use FILE or HTTP.
If it is reliable guaranteed in-orrdered delivery you need, then use MSMQT.

However, for scalability purposes, it doesn't matter what transport you use.
The scaling happens on the host level.
You simply create multiple hosts and add servers to the hosts.
You can then Map the handlers [Receive/Send] for the adapter to different
hosts.
Enlist the orchestrations to separate dedicated hosts.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
MRoze

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
EBusiness Server Team
[vbcol=seagreen]

Iuliu Rus

2004-07-01, 5:52 pm

When you say "direct invocation" are you reffering to the call
orchestration shape or to the direct port binding? direct binding stores
the messages directly in the biztalk database.