We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story
2018-06-05T17:25:00Z

What needs improvement with IBM MQ?

15

Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with IBM MQ.

What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?

ITCS user
Guest
3636 Answers

author avatar
Top 20Real User

I'd very much like to see more integration in the monitoring tools.

2021-08-06T10:54:24Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

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.

2021-06-29T10:30:59Z
author avatar
Top 10LeaderboardReal User

I would like to see their cloud feasibility with other vendors. I know that they are very much tied to their own cloud right now, but I don't know how they are supporting AWS and Azure. With IBM products, there's less marketing. If they do more demos and more seminars on their products, it will be very useful. On a given day. I get seminar invites for many vendors and products, but for IBM, I may get an invite once or twice a year. Documentation is easily available to people who know about IBM products. However, if you're not familiar with the products and because there are no popups about seminars and product news, you will not be able to easily find the documentation. So, I think that there's a gap in IBM's marketing, which needs to be improved.

2021-05-21T10:53:29Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

The way the solution provides us with the product and the way we use it gives us what we need. We don't actually have any issues with it. There could be a better front-end GUI interface for us, where we can see things more easily. However, apart from that, it works well. The pricing is definitely could be cheaper. Also, the support model, even though it's very good, could be cheaper as well.

2021-03-09T19:58:38Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

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.

2021-03-04T16:32:54Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

The clustering capabilities have provided some difficulties when it comes to resiliency. This has been a challenge for managing the environment.

2021-01-16T04:32:47Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

I would like to see message duplication included. We don't have a mechanism for duplicating a message. There is a different model where you can have multiple subscribers and not publish the stored data to multiple subscribers. Duplication is the most important for sending the same data for different applications.

2021-01-06T22:10:13Z
author avatar
Top 10LeaderboardReal User

It would be an advantage if they can include streaming in IBM MQ, similar to Kafka. Kafka is used mainly for streaming purposes. This feature is clearly lacking in IBM MQ. If they add this feature to IBM MQ, it will have an edge over other products.

2020-12-01T18:39:41Z
author avatar
Top 10LeaderboardReal User

There isn't that much happening with the installation consoles and monitoring consoles. This could be improved. We need to have a better administration console and better monitoring features. Right now, they are not good and could be a lot better. The pricing could be better.

2020-11-11T15:00:03Z
author avatar
Top 10LeaderboardReal User

We are looking at the latest version, and we hope that resilience, high availability, and monitoring will be improved. It can have some more improvements in the heterogeneous messaging feature. The current solution is on-premises, so good integration with public cloud messaging solutions would be useful.

2020-11-03T15:42:22Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

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.

2020-07-05T09:37:59Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

It's hard to put in a nutshell, but it's sort of developed as more of an on-premise solution. It hasn't moved much away from that. But we want to use the auto-scaling and scalability of some of the cloud services. It has developed a fair bit in terms of even the database of the board and stuff like that. Over the next three to five years, we want to move totally into the Azure.

2020-06-17T10:56:00Z
author avatar
Top 10Real User

We are looking for another solution that is less expensive. There is room for improvement. The live and portal monitoring needs improvement.

2020-04-26T06:32:00Z
author avatar
Top 10Real User

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

2020-03-30T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

It could provide more monitoring tools and some improvement to the UI. I would also like to see more throughput in future versions.

2020-03-30T07:58:00Z
author avatar
Top 5LeaderboardReal User

IBM MQ has a lot of room for improvement. It's an older solution but they are improving the product. It's wider and it's a heavy application so it supports clusters also. It is expensive. The cost is high. There should be more improvement in the new age of technologies.

2020-03-30T07:58:00Z
author avatar
Top 10Real User

The monitoring could be even better by building it into the product. The disaster recovery mechanism could also be built-in. I would like to see them not rely on third-party tools for everything. Finally, they have provided a Liberty Profile in the Web Console for administration, and that could be further enhanced. It is not fit for use by an enterprise. They have to get rid of their WebSphere process and develop a front-end on Node.js or the like.

2020-03-30T07:58:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

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.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
ExpertTop 5Real User

We have had an issue with the migration. Most of our applications are running on Java and WebSphere. We have a project to get rid of an old .NET application since we are experiencing a loss in connection during the migration to 9.1. The problem appears to be more on the .NET side than the MQ side though. The technical user interface is outdated in terms of the language used. I think this is inherited from the mainframe. This is more of an engineering issue. It is running on a Windows platform, and I don't like having Windows being the backbone of our company. I don’t like legacy view of MQ.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Top 10Consultant

I can't say pricing is good. It is a popular and reliable solution. IBM can be integrated with other products which is why it gets sold. People also like Oracle. They can be integrated with multiple systems. That is a selling point for these solutions.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Top 10Consultant

I would like IBM to improve the performance. Right now, it is lacking and can be bulky.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Consultant

You should be able to increase the message size. It should be dynamic. Each queue has a limitation of 5,000. Also, the maximum message length defaults to 4 MB. If it is more than that it should be able to increase and allow whatever the particular size of the message is into the queue. In terms of additional features, I would like to see it be lightweight and go to the cloud easily, and dynamic scaling should be added.

2020-03-29T08:26:00Z
author avatar
Top 10Real User

I'm not sure that current version has event-driven mechanism requests that people go for. I would like the latest version to come with both type of event-driven mechanisms: an email server and a POP server. If that is not there, then that would be a great addition.

2020-03-26T07:31:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Consultant

It could be easier to use.

2020-03-26T07:31:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

I am not involved with it at the architect level. I am providing entry-level support for the product. But perhaps if they could come up with monitoring dashboards that would be good. We are using external monitoring tools, apart from our IBM MQ, to monitor IBM MQ. If we could get monitoring tools or dashboards to keep everything simple for the user to understand, that would be good.

2020-03-25T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Reseller

They could integrate monitoring into the solution, a bit more than they do now. Currently, they have opened the REST API so you can get statistic and accounting information and details from MQ and build your own monitoring, if you want. IBM can improve the solution in this direction.

2020-03-25T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Top 5Real User

What could be improved is the high-availability. The way MQ works is that it separates the high-availability from the workload balance. The scalability should be easier. If something happens so that the messages are not available on each node, scalability is only possible for the workload balance. That's a big difference. And the application must be prepared to consume from each node so that it doesn't lose a message. Otherwise, you lose the ordering of the messages.

2020-03-25T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Consultant

I had some issues earlier, two, three years back. I don't exactly remember them now.

2020-03-25T15:24:00Z
author avatar
Top 10Real User

Day-to-day, I don't really see anything much that we are lacking, but I have never really compared MQ with other products to see what it lacks. I am well aware of the way that IBM sells the suite of products. But I would like to see it integrate with the newer ways of messaging, such as Kafka. They might say that you have IBM Integration Bus to do that stuff, but it would be great if MQ could, out-of-the-box, listen to public Kafka. One of the other improvements that I would like to see from MQ is for it to be containerized. It may already have that functionality.

2020-03-25T07:03:00Z
author avatar
Top 20Real User

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.

2020-03-22T08:19:00Z
author avatar
Real User

I would like to see faster monitoring tools for this solution.

2019-06-24T14:31:00Z
author avatar
Real User

* Better testing by the supplier is needed * Ability to send to a group of queues without the need to use pubsub and without the need to write one's own programmes.

2018-11-16T15:02:00Z
author avatar
Real User

I believe there is too much code to be done in order to handle the elements that you develop. We choose a new feature, we would choose something that is a little more … even more out-of-the-box, and gives me the possibility to configure directly where the messages should go, instead. Also, the IBM MQ, it doesn’t really have a connector.

2018-10-02T19:04:00Z
author avatar
Real User

MQ needs instruments for connection with new modern queues like Kafka or RabbitMQ.

2018-07-06T20:09:00Z
author avatar
User

There is not much room for improvement, except it could get a face lift with a modern marketing campaign.

2018-06-07T15:32:00Z
author avatar
User

SonicMQ CAA (continuous availability architecture) functionality on auto failover and data persistence should be made available without a shared drive, as it exists in multi-instance queue managers.

2018-06-05T17:25:00Z
Learn what your peers think about IBM MQ. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: October 2021.
542,029 professionals have used our research since 2012.