IBM MQ Reviews

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.

We provide a channel that we call "the link," so we are distributors of numbering services. These links are connected to a simulator, for example, when MQ is related to some application or the scanner. It's a synchronized communication where we first check two-step authentication. So first, we start with the authentication. In the second step, the MQ server provides the connection. Then the system decides if it can make the connection or not. For example, if I'm uploading something, it will check one cluster, not the other five. So next time, I'm just checking to see if we can connect. After that, the other side is also checking. Those clusters are physical connectivity clusters.

We are sending everything. The partner and we create an acknowledgment number and check to see if everything is fine or not. Once everything checks out and we have verified the person with our partner, we establish the connection, sending a message. Then we are also checking the permissions and format. Sometimes there are some errors, so we have to check the login acknowledgment number and figure out what the error code means. We are handling everything for the project, from the code and deployment to support. We are handling everything through an RFP repository. So from there, we are handling every version released in the last two years. Every year, we upgrade according to the guidelines.

There are so many good things with IBM MQ networking. So many complicated issues arise when you're trying to configure your network, and MQ helps by providing the clustering. In our project architecture, we have a cluster that distinguishes between major requests from applications. There is also a centralized cluster. Let's suppose 10 applications are connecting to that cluster. In each application, we add differently. 

If I need to add multiple features to the centralized cluster, we can create another cluster. From there, the GMG is connected. Also, clusters can provide a backup. So suppose this solution faces some failure, like a power outage, MQ can automatically redistribute the load to other servers. 

We are using the synchronizer and another module in our product. We are stepping the connection from the IBM channel. After that, we can send or receive any message. This is synchronizing. We are handling the clustering, and we have created a design for how the NP is built with the partner.

IBM is still adding some features and coding some other systems on the security end. However, it has the most security features I've seen in a communication solution. Security is the most important thing for our purposes.

Sometimes, there are network issues, which means more applications are connected to those messages, so I would like to fix that. For example, suppose there's a new network, and I want to add virtual memory to address a network issue within the cluster. So there is a network issue that needs to be resolved from the cluster. So I need to add the permissions for that particular team or particular time. There are many complications with IBM MQ servers.

I've been using IBM MQ since last year.

IBM MQ is reliable.

We don't use IBM support much. Sometimes partners will come to us with questions, so we just guide them. Sometimes, you need an MQ person because they have access. We guide the customer to ask this question. You have to ask the MQ entity or the entry person. They will help you. And we are not writing any protocols because a separate team does that. And also, if anything goes wrong with the MQ product, then IBM will address that.

From a coding perspective, it's a straightforward process. There are no complications. We cannot directly access the IBM server because there is a separate team assigned to do some security and get some code of conduct from the MQ team. They are handling the MQ server. So we ask them to create these entry servers to discuss that. And also, we are defining everything. We are responsible for handling invalid queries. So they recreate a wrong question or wrong to them. So, whatever is an appropriate question. 

In terms of maintenance, there are three reasons you'll get a maintenance window. On the maintenance window, we are just restarting the epicenter. Nothing else. If it requires any patching or updates, we perform those. But you don't have to restart the application.  The epicenter typically runs continuously.

I rate IBM MQ seven out of 10. It's a good option for anything banking-related where you need secure communications. There are some other similar products out there, but I'm not about other servers. But I'm aware of our BME. So if you're doing banking or anything that requires secure channels, I would recommend IBM MQ. 

We have two different use cases for this solution. We use it for the interactive interconnectivity between clients into the cloud and applications communicating within our enterprise software.

I have found the solution to be very robust. It has a strong reputation, easy to use, simple to configure in our enterprise software, and supports all the protocols that we use.

Everything in the solution could be simplified a little. We have trouble with the configuration and cost which is mostly an internal issue, but nevertheless, the errors do come up when there are configuration changes across a specific version. We have slightly different versions, which may have slightly different configurations which cause issues.

It is intensive to maintain and train people to use the application. There has to be a certain amount of education going into the developers, as well as the infrastructure staff. This could be improved.

I have been using IBM MQ for approximately 20 years.

The solution is very stable.

We have found the solution is highly scalable. It is very easy to scale horizontally, we can scale across and make another instance of the application if we need to.

We have approximately 2,000 to 10,000 are using this solution in my organization.

The quality of service can vary depending on the level of support for different issues. If it is on an issue with what IBM does within their cloud that they control as an ASP it can be somewhat complicated because it is not visible to us. They only support and run the model for us. They will do the updates, manage, and make sure everything is working, it is an effective service but if we have an issue, we do not get that much of a response from them. However, when it is on-premise with us on our side and we talk directly to IBM and they support us fully for the application. 

The installation can be fairly simple, but when changes or modifications are necessary within the system for the implementation it can be a bit difficult. We standardize a lot of the process whether it is using Jenkins or Pipelines, or another solution to make it as simple as possible. However, when we make changes and more errors and configuration problems come up, it can be quite difficult to narrow down those problems. Generally, we automate most of this part which has limited the impact but the process could be improved.

Since we automate a lot of the deployment elements I am not sure the breakdown of how long it takes for each part, but typically all together it takes approximately half a day.

We do the implementation of the solution.

This solution is a message exchanges system for queuing messages. The messages come in and if they are rejected or if they fail to be received, they sometimes fall into something that is called a dead letter queue, queues that are dead, or queues that are ineffective. Those have to be maintained and monitored at all times. There is quite a lot of attention needed. It is extremely critical and the robustness is extreme when it is on the edge. When it is in the enterprise is not that bad, but if it is on the edge, outward-facing to the client, we do a lot of work to maintain and ensure that it is working at all times.

You have to license per application installation and if you expand vertically or horizontally, you will be paying for more licenses. The licenses are approximately $10,000 to $15,000 a license, it can get expensive quite quickly.

We maintain and support a lot of applications across a wide enterprise. Therefore the cost of licenses increases with each individual implementation of a client because we have to pay for licenses. We are looking for an alternative solution to reduce costs by going to an open-source messaging system because we do not need the robustness of IBM MQ.

I have evaluated Rabbit MQ.

If you want a robust enterprise application that you know is going to be around that you can trust and you are very comfortable with the concept that you are going to pay for that stability and robustness, then IBM MQ is the best choice. If you are on a lighter throughput or you do not need to worry about the robustness as much then Rabbit MQ could be the better choice. It is a fairly stable application, and it works very well but you do not have that industrialization and long-term code benefit that you receive from IBM WebSphere. If your use case and budget fit then this solution would be a great choice.

We have used the application for a long time. I understand it, how it works and therefore I feel comfortable with it. From a pure usage standpoint, it is great. It will handle anything, but you have to be willing to understand that you are getting into something you cannot go backward on very easily. You cannot easily swap another suitable or similar application out without a lot of work involved. You have to be very careful what you are trying to accomplish with your software.

I rate IBM MQ an eight out of ten.

MQ is the middleware, which takees the files from an upstream system to a downstream system or the downstream system to an upstream system.

The system integration is good. 

The pricing needs improvement. 

I have been using IBM MQ for six years. 

The scalability is a nine out of ten. 

The initial setup is complex. 

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

IBM MQ could improve capacity, monitoring, and automatization.

I have been using IBM MQ for approximately 22 years.

IBM MQ is a stable solution, it is used mainframe computers and it is secure.

The scalability of IBM MQ is good.

We have approximately 100 people using this solution in my company.

The support from IBM MQ is good.

IBM MQ has a complex setup. The time it takes for deployment take approximately two to three months.

We have a special contract with IBM MQ that give us a certain price.

I am satisfied with the solution overall.

We have five to six people for the maintenance of this solution.

I rate IBM MQ an eight out of ten.

We use this solution locally and work in port authority where we deal with multiple parties like warehousing, containers, customs and Egyptian customs. Therefore we can communicate with each other and achieve middleware goals. We use the MQ Server and MQ client in each party and control it with the MQ server in port authority.

The product has allowed our organization to deal with all parties, like containers and warehousing. As a result, we can deal with these parties, exchange messages, and achieve our goals.

We have found the security and monitoring capabilities of the product most valuable. The product helps us monitor messages with other queues, view duplicated messages and control undelivered messages so they can be stored in pack-out queues and restored. We like more than one feature in MQ as the product is secure. For example, we can exchange messages between all parties with a stake and have control of undelivered and unrouted messages. Furthermore, with a scheme of validation, we can report access.

The dashboard is handy because we use it to monitor the messages and know how many messages are delivered to parties' dashboards. For example, we can notice how many letters are delivered, how many messages are undelivered, and how many messages are brought incorrectly by the dashboard. However, it would be great if the dashboard had additional features like a board design or picture management features.

We have been using this solution for over six years and are currently using MQ version nine.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Over ten parties, with 10,000 people, are using this solution in our organization, and two employees are required for maintenance. One employee is a system analyst, and the other is an integration developer.

I rate technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

We did not previously use any other solutions.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to install and configure.

The deployment was done in-house.

The product is good, and our organization has used this product for more than ten years.

The licenses for our company are according to port authority contract sales and we buy a license for six months or one year. I don't know the exact costs of the licenses.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten because we have no issues with it. The solution is good, but improvements could be made to the dashboard.

Primarily, I use IBM MQ for microservices, modeling, and communications.

IBM MQ's flexibility has sped up our active communication. 

I've been using IBM MQ for five and a half years.

IBM MQ's stability is good.

IBM MQ can scale, but there are some challenges with it.

IBM MQ's pricing is higher than its competitors'.

I would rate IBM MQ seven out of ten.

I am an integration developer at a bank, and we use IBM tools to develop our solutions. We use IIB (version 10), IBM App Connect (version 11), IBM MQ (version 9.1), IBM web servers, and IBM ODM. We use IBM MQ for exchanging messages between applications.

It is useful for exchanging information between applications. 

It could always be more stable and secure.

I have been using this solution for about three years.

I didn't use anything before IBM MQ.

It was straightforward. It took less than a minute.

We didn't use any integrator. We have a team of about five people who work with this solution. We have developers, a team lead, and a project manager.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate it an eight out of 10.