IBM MQ Reviews

In our company, it's the main hub for our whole CRM solution. MQ manages things through the Broker.

I like the whole idea. But the first things are its simplicity and its robustness. Compared to any other product, it's the most robust I've worked with. And it's extremely easy to manage.

The worst part is the monitoring or admin, especially in the ACE or Broker. There is always a problem of transparency. In MQ you can observe any process and you know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, but with the ACE or Broker, it's a problem monitoring the HTTP inputs. It's like a black box.

The reason that I'm emphasizing monitoring is that I used to work for the company that produced the administration and monitoring tools for IBM. There was a lot of competition and a lot of confusion in the market. When I moved to this company I actually used my previous experience and wrote my own tools. I am not much of a C# programmer, so I was struggling a bit. I know the concepts, but I was missing some straightforward support from IBM. They were selling it as a part of Tivoli, but you needed to implement the whole Tivoli infrastructure. If you had some other monitoring provider it was a bit of a pain. That is my concern here.

I've been certified as an MQ specialist since 1997 so I have about 23 years' experience in this field. I've been using it since version 2.0. Currently, I'm in production support and supporting version 9, mainly.

It's stable. I'm working for a FT 500 company, a global company employing about 60,000 people, and we've been using this product ever since I joined the company in 2003. We haven't had a single major performance issue or crash.

It's scalable. We have gradually increased our usage over time.

I am satisfied with the support from IBM. To be honest, I used to be an IBM trainer for this product, so I know people there. The only issue I have is that if the product goes out of service, it's difficult to get PMR (Problem Management Report) for it. In production, a lot of businesses tend to stick with the older versions.

I've been doing it for over 20 years, so it's straightforward to me. Beginners might struggle with the initial settings, like user rights and the basic stuff, but setting up MQ is fine.

Before joining this company I was mainly consulting for various companies in Germany, and I noticed the core problem was always that in projects where MQ was implemented, they were targeting too low on the management food chain. You need that to go as high as possible because it changes the whole paradigm, your ways of thinking. A lot of the implementations were bad because they were partially patching some problems at the bottom level. The whole strategy was never oriented to messaging. My suggestion would be to be aware of that. Go global from the start. Don't address things partially.

There is a team of four people who supervise all MQ activities here.

I would rate IBM MQ at 10 out of 10, but ACE or Broker are between eight and nine, because of the lack of transparency.

Our use cases include ATM transactions where a customer, for example, inquires about balances. Transactions go from an ATM at a branch, using a Java application to take the information, and it connects into our mainframe, gets the balances, and goes back. 

We also use it for when customers go online using the internet itself for things like pre-approved home loans. We take the customers' information from the front-end and pop it into MQ to look up the customer's data in the bank itself — all of the databases — and then come back to the customer. 

It is also used in our mobile banking. MQ is connected to SAP in the background. MQ is in between, passing information to SAP and SAP will give the reply back on the mobile banking app, like when a customer asks for a one-time password.

We initially went with a single server or two servers. We used a lot of the mainframe and we used it on the one server. Then we realized that we were down to a single point of failure. What we did was we enabled something called queue sharing where you have multiple landing platforms, which lets you execute multiple applications in the background. And we're now able to use our HA failover quite extensively. It previously required one server to be down and there would be an effect on customer business. Now it requires at least three servers to be down before we start feeling the workload. And even then, we're hardly ever down because we have now spread the load using the queue shared clusters.

In terms of the solution helping to reduce the cost of integration, we're using what is called the MQ Appliance. Because the appliance connects multiple solutions in our bank to this platform, we don't need to procure more licenses or more servers or more infrastructure. So at the moment, we're using a very cost-effective model, compared to two to three years ago, which is when we started to consolidate servers. We had about 400 servers but we've reduced their number by moving them to the appliance. We've consolidated all of those server licenses and server infrastructures.

For example, we took a server that was front-end, using Java, and connected to the mainframe. We have that entire server's application queue, entry queue, and all the objects moved onto the appliance. And there is no cost to it. It's just a box. There's no operating system on it. We have MQ on it and MQ then connects things to the rest of the bank, so we save on the infrastructure, on server licenses, and MQ licenses. We've created a setup like that a few times already in our bank.

This process of integration has saved us a lot of time. Previously our projects would take at least three to four weeks. Now, once we have firewalls and security in place, and once we have an acceptable solution design in front of us, they take three to four days. From the time we design the solution until things are connected to the appliance, it takes a week. It's only fast because most of it is scripted. It's almost like a container.

What we find most valuable is the fact that we can decouple it from the application. If one side is down, but someone in the bank is serving a customer and needs to connect to an account, he can put in the information and wait. When the remote system comes up and connects, we can push messages with the push function. So what is quite useful is the asynchronous function which means we don't lose everything in the bank. Although we use a lot of things synchronously, asynch is the best thing so that no banking information is ever lost, even when the network goes down and comes up.

We can also expand it across many servers with the cluster, using load balancing and failover. We use that extensively as well. The load balancing works absolutely wonderfully.

Overall, it makes us very flexible in the architecture we can use at the moment. When someone comes to us and says, "I need ABC," we can put together the correct solution for him with all our flexibility.

We use Red Hat from a server point of view. With our Linux box, MQ is on the box itself. We use that quite extensively as well. Inside of that, we find the shared HA function quite useful. It allows us to do HA really quickly, compared to how things were before.

At the moment we're very limited in the way we can interface with the cloud. 

I have been using it for 20 years now. I've been at the bank for 17 years and I used it before that as well.

The stability of the solution is very good. I would give it a nine out of 10. The main features are its reliability and availability and, as a messaging platform, it's very good in those areas.

The scalability is the one area where IBM has fallen behind. As much as it is used, there is a limit to the number of people who are skilled in MQ. That is definitely an issue. Places have kept their MQ-skilled people and other places have really struggled to get MQ skills. It's not a widely-known skillset.

In terms of the number of business areas using it in our bank, there are about 15. A lot of the major ones use it, such as credit, operations/finance, home loans, and ATMs. 

The bank has been very good in getting good technical resources to help us. There is a specific couple of people in IBM who know our architecture itself. We have what is called a value-add program where, when we have a problem or a service request, it will go through IBM but it will automatically land in the box of one of the experts who knows our architecture very well. We reach the same two people each time. We don't have to explain things to them.

We did not have a previous solution. Early on, we didn't have many options to choose from. A procurement person came along and told us that this is the best solution for us.

The setup was very complex in the beginning: how we had to put it in, how we had to tune it, and how we had to fix it. There were so many parameters. It wasn't just a simple drop-in, deploy, and go. In addition, because certain applications work in a certain manner, it required a lot of tuning.

My team, on average, has 10 years of experience on MQ so at this stage we've come to the point where we can tune it fairly quickly. So while the initial setup wasn't simple and quick, it has become very quick.

The initial setup took us several weeks, if not a few months. We had to get IBM to help with things in the beginning. We had system issues then, but it has been stable since then.

The IBM consultants we worked with were very good.

MQ's features are very extensive compared to SQS on Amazon or messaging from Microsoft. Those solutions have basic features in there. They say, "This is what 90 percent of the use cases will use," whereas MQ is very robust in the way it's set up, in the way it works, and in the way it can be tuned. You have a lot of connections where you can connect thousands of users to the bank and thousands out of the bank as well.

It is definitely way ahead of all the other messaging platforms. It's like the "BMW" or "Mercedes" of messaging. The others will still do the work, but they're fairly average in what they do. They're very basic compared to what we do. Because we are a major bank, we have many different platforms and many languages, so we use it very extensively.

You must be careful in that it must fit what you want it to do. A few years ago, we had a silo approach where everybody had their own IBM MQ and their own application support with their own teams. That got out of control. In the last few years we realized that you need to be careful about the deployment model you're using. And you need to make sure it's used for the proper use cases.

That's really the biggest lesson I've learned from using IBM MQ: You need to be very sure about what you want it to do.

I would advise that you talk to someone who knows about the solution and who is not biased. Set up a call with someone like me to look at the solution before you decide to go down this path and, similarly, before you decide to throw it out. Talk to someone who has at least seven years of experience with it and who can give you an unbiased opinion about how it works, and then make up your mind. People have come to us and we have said, "Based on what you are doing, we don't think MQ is the best solution for you. You should be looking at other solutions." And other times, we'll tell them that this is the perfect solution. 

The way MQ works is very good from a messaging point of view. There is very little that needs improving. MQ is very flexible and very tunable. We use it to transport hundreds of thousands of messages every day with absolutely no problems.

At the moment the solution is on-premise. But in the last two years, the bank has decided that it needs to go with the public cloud. So in the last two years, most of our development has gone towards decoupling MQ because a lot of the vendor applications were on the box where MQ was. We're working on the solution and decoupling everything so we can push toward the cloud itself. The solution's built-in connectors are more applicable to when we talk about cloud solutions. 

As for containerization, eventually we will go for it but, at the moment, we don't use it. It's difficult to work on a mainframe because of the way it's set up. But it's definitely something the guys will be using when we look at the Unix servers and other boxes.

For deployment and maintenance we have a team of eight people. We have three people on the mainframe and another three to four people for the appliance. They work with each other as well. On the Unix solution, which includes Linux, AIX, etc., we have another team of four, but all these teams overlap. The average upgrade won't take less than two people, but on the Unix box, upgrades are straightforward and someone can do it on his own.

We have a core banking application. If any system or application wants to talk to the core banking application, the request and the response will go through the MQ servers. The requests and responses are in the form of XML.

We have a VMware environment with Windows and Linux. 

We have clients spread all over Africa and they have to process different types of requests, such as credit requests and debit requests. We use the Queue Manager to handle these requests. Our MQ server will accept the request and send it on to our core banking application.

If you imagine the order from left to right, the application is on the left, then the enqueue server is in the middle, and the core banking is on the right. In between the queue server and the banking application, we have APIs and systems in place to understand the XML files.

The most valuable feature is the Queue Manager, which lies in the middle between our application and our core banking server.

Managing this solution is not difficult.

IBM MQ is very stable, which is important for our core banking application.

The memory management is very poor and it consumes too much memory. We have 24 gigabytes of RAM and almost every day, we had to free up processes so that it can run.

Some of our messages were not being transmitted so we had to manually look at the MQ server to cut and paste them. That is supposed to be fully automated. The problem is normally a routing issue but it is compounded if there are connectivity troubles. For example, if 3,000 messages are supposed to be sent but 1,000 were not then you have to do it manually.

The solution is not very lightweight and if it could be decentralized, then put into three or four containers, it may be an improvement in this regard.

I have been using IBM MQ since 2015.

The MQ service has never gone down and has never failed us. It is only offline when the VM is offline.

This is a scalable solution. We scale by adding another VM to our cluster.

We have eight engineers who are using MQ, but in terms of end-users, or people who are consuming the services, there are thousands or millions. It is an enterprise-level organization and each application has a user base, so the scale depends on the application.

I have never had support for this solution.

As far as I understand, we did not use another solution prior to IBM MQ. Our old strategy did not use this type of technology.

The initial setup is very straightforward. I have done it both on Linux and on Windows. With Windows, it is just a case of hitting the "next" button. I would say that within ten minutes, you should be finished with the installation.

Prior to the installation, you have to make sure that you have Java installed.

I deployed this solution for the company.

The number of people required for maintenance depends on the environment. We used to have one person manage each application that was connected to the MQ server, which meant that we had four people maintaining it.

It is difficult to assess the ROI for this type of solution.

IBM MQ is expensive and they charge based on the CPU.

I am familiar with a couple of similar solutions, including Red Hat AMQ. In fact, I am trying to migrate to Red Hat. It is very easy to install and get it running. All you have to do is get your API and you're done. Stability-wise, however, with Red Hat AMQ, I have seen cases where some of the messages were lost. IBM MQ is definitely more stable.

For the most part, this solution serves our purpose. It is not difficult to manage and the only challenges we have really had were to deal with some of the messages manually.

My advice to anybody who is researching this solution is to consider costs first. It is expensive and you have to ask what value you are going to get from it. You need to consider factors like how many messages you are sending per day. If your budget is sufficient then IBM MQ is your choice, otherwise, you should look into a cheaper option. Also, if stability is the most important thing to you then IBM MQ is the choice that you want to make.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

I use the solution in my company since our clients always go for a middleware solution. IBM MQ is a part of the middleware solution category. When I design a middleware solution for our clients, I use IBM MQ to basically store the message.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it offers guaranteed delivery of messages to users. One good thing about the product is the guaranteed delivery since it guarantees that the message won't get lost. My company uses IBM MQ since we handle a lot of asynchronous modes of the design flow, and that is why we choose to use the solution to host the message before we proceed with the other sub-processes. The tool is effective in areas like message delivery and managing large message volumes. It is a very good solution.

In IBM MQ, the channel connection is an area where my company faces some limitations. At times, we hit limitations on the connection, meaning the connection is fully occupied.

I have been using IBM MQ for more than ten years. My company is a reseller of IBM tools.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase is very easy.

The solution can be deployed in an hour.

The tool saves on development, implementation, and operation costs. The product is quite easy to maintain.

If one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the tool's price a seven. The product is expensive.

Maintenance is quite easy when there is an upgrade of any version. You just need to migrate the configuration to the other platform, and it is quite easy.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

The product does not allow users to access data from API or external networks since it can only be used in a closed network, making it an area where improvements are required.

I have been using IBM MQ for fourteen years. My company is a customer of the product. I don't remember the version of the solution.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Around 15 to 20 people in my company use the solution.

The product is used whenever there is a need to use it in the development phase. Once the tool is deployed on a particular site, we don't need to use the product until and unless any issues or errors are reported.

I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Before IBM MQ, my company used to use normal point-to-point APIs. My company started to use IBM MQ because we wanted to introduce standardization in our processes.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

I rate the product price a four on a scale of one to ten, where one is low price and ten is high price.

IBM MQ streamlined our company's application-to-application communication since it is a rigid and robust solution that allows you to transfer data from one system to another system using the tool's adapters. In general, the product is very robust.

A scenario where IBM MQ reliability was critical for our company's operations includes an incident involving three to four of our clients who use the product, among which a few are airports situated in regions like Delhi and Bangalore in India. All the big airports use IBM MQ as an integration platform, so it is considered a tier-one application. In the aforementioned areas, there is a need for a tool that offers scalability and robustness.

The feature of IBM MQ, which I found to be most instrumental for our messaging needs, stems from the fact that my company never lost messages when we were using the product. The product has a queue manager, and the message doesn't go anywhere until and unless you read it. The best part of the product is that it ensures that there is no data loss.

IBM MQ's security features have enhanced the data transmission process in our company since it functions in a very secure manner. Nobody can get unauthorized access to the product.

The product offers very good scalability to support business growth.

IBM MQ's integration capabilities with other systems are beneficial since we have developed many interfaces for many airports. Many systems use IBM MQ to send data from one system to another, so it has helped in a great way when it comes to the integration part.

I rate the overall tool an eight to nine out of ten.

We use the solution when connecting with the external system to process messages in a queue-based flow. When the solution receives a message, the flow is triggered to cycle through routing, mapping, and logic to create a pipe delimited, XML, or other formats that send to the end system. 

We created the queue-based flow to receive messages and connect them to end systems using a pop-up concept to classify messages by subscription topics. 

The solution is fast with end data compared to other messaging tools. 

With integration tools, the node is connected with the queue manager so there is some dependency. In the solution's latest version, the dependency was removed which allows us to create servers without any interdependencies.

The solution should offer a freeware version, free vouchers, or certifications for learning purposes and building a knowledge base. When creating an account to download software, you must provide user details like credit card information. If you exceed the allotted hours or days while trying to learn the solution, your credit card is charged for additional time which is what happened to one of my colleagues. 

Learning the solution is not as simple as MuleSoft or APG. Some developers left the market because they didn't know how to learn the solution. Other products provide free vouchers or certifications or learn programs but IBM currently doesn't do that. 

I have been using the solution for ten years. 

The solution is an older product and very stable. Our product teams never have issues with it.

We have experienced some issues with scalability because there is a known lag when scaling.

Technical support is rated a ten out of ten because we receive support very quickly but rarely need it. 

Positive

The initial setup is easy with no huge steps. 

There really isn't any deployment. Creating queues does not take much time and we use them with channels and subscription topics to push and pull messages

The implementation was completed in-house with integration developers doing the important work. 

If you want to route messages through a queue-based app, definitely take a look at this solution and research the cost. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.