5 ms·

Is there anything special about the IBM MQ implementation which makes it worth naming them? It looks like you can connect to it using AMQP so I wonder why they

by aeyes 3y ago

Is there anything special about the IBM MQ implementation which makes it worth naming them? It looks like you can connect to it using AMQP so I wonder why they wouldn't just say something generic like "MQ" or "AMQP protocol".

smarx007 3y ago
I assume IBM Message Queue Interface (MQI) is the only supported protocol in this installation. Don't know of any other compatible brokers to support MQI. Edit: "The FedNow Service will initially leverage IBM® MQ MQi Client for the payment message flows." according to https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/blog/asked-answered-fednow-payment-flow.html https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/blog/a...
wslh 3y ago
Last time, a decade ago, I played with RabbitMQ and similar open source queue system they didn't handle congestion and rate limitation well (crashed). From my little experience with classical IBM systems like MQ they knew about that stuff.
- sjdmdlakziggy 3y ago
  I spent a couple years deploying and integrating IBM MQ, and I own a couple of services currently that interact with it. It was (just a couple years ago) and probably still is more robust than current open source solutions, as long as you weren't planning on forking the code for some very specific use case that requires heavy modification, or the more likely situation of just wanting to save money. As far as message queues go for something like the federal reserve, IBM MQ is really the only option that wouldn't raise a lot of eyebrows in the industry. The Fed is not the kind of institution that I think people would be lenient on for being open and innovative with their software solutions, banks really need to know that this thing is going to work and they all run IBM MQ themselves already. Not to mention the integration possibilities with Db2 and IMS, which are both huge in finance. My only complaint is that it is very expensive. That's the story with most of the kind of hardcore technical products IBM sells that are likely to wind up near mainframes. I'd imagine the Fed gets a sizeable discount though.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Being able to publicly claim your product as the one that underlies part of the federal reserve banking system has got to be worth some real money to IBM.
    - sjdmdlakziggy 3y ago
      That's part of it I'm sure, but it's much more than just advertising. What bank is going to make a risky move to a new message queueing service to save a few bucks when all their connections with the Fed use IBM's? And the hook there goes even deeper, because all of this stuff is deeply integrated with your databases.
  - pas 3y ago
    can you please compare this IBM mainframe plus MQ stack with distributed and sufficiently redundant Kafka, for example?
    - sjdmdlakziggy 3y ago
      I can try, but the difficulty there is that Kafka is not really a traditional message queue system and the use cases are different. In short though, redundancy isn't sufficient to solve the reliability issues inherent in financial applications and transaction processing. If you want througput, Kafka is the better option. Use a message queue for transaction processing against a specific target, where it is a requirement for you to have guaranteed, one-time and one-time only delivery, and possibly that its secret and should only be delivered to one target. You should conceptualize Kafka as being a tool to maintain a sort of distributed, global state. A message queue is more like getting served to go to court. Technically, Kafka is an event stream, not a message queue (this can be confusing because event streams are often implemented at a surface level like message queues). The difference between an event and a message on a conceptual level is important though. There's plenty of good literature out there if you want to dig deep into the difference.
      - pas 3y ago
rodgerd 3y ago
I mean it pre-dates probably every open source MQ implementation, for starters.
wredue 3y ago
It’s a little especially strange as IBM hasn’t exactly made a great reputation for themselves over the last several years. Name dropping IBM makes me think that the reserve is generally not confident and is ready to blame IBM for what they expect to happen.
- brewdad 3y ago
  More likely, everyone in charge of this project on the government side is over 55 and still think of IBM as a signal of quality and reliability.
  - Nemo_bis 3y ago
    Wasted opportunity though. The ECB is adopting Kafka. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecb.prototype_summary20230526~71d0b26d55.en.pdf https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecb.prototype_summar...
    - wslh 3y ago
      Kafka is not the same of MQ.
  - dralley 3y ago
    There is a huge variation in "quality" across IBM's product line. There are still a few sectors where they are legitimately top-tier competitors, and there are others where they're a joke. Half the banking sector runs on IBM and has been running on IBM for decades. They know the domain well and have legitimate credibility for being reliable. It's not comparable to some of their other markets.
- ratg13 3y ago
  IBM MQ has been the standard for message queues for literal decades. Hitching a horse to a different technology platform that has only been around for a few years to complete a project that should last for many more decades would be an architectural choice that would only lead to high costs and high risk of major changes in the future and puts the whole system at risk.
throwawayForMe2 3y ago
The Fed has been using IBM MQ for connectivity for over 20 years for their outward facing services such as Fedwire and National Net Settlement.

by aeyes 3y ago

smarx007 3y ago

I assume IBM Message Queue Interface (MQI) is the only supported protocol in this installation. Don't know of any other compatible brokers to support MQI. Edit: "The FedNow Service will initially leverage IBM® MQ MQi Client for the payment message flows." according to https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/blog/asked-answered-fednow-payment-flow.html https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/blog/a...

wslh 3y ago

Last time, a decade ago, I played with RabbitMQ and similar open source queue system they didn't handle congestion and rate limitation well (crashed). From my little experience with classical IBM systems like MQ they knew about that stuff.

sjdmdlakziggy 3y ago
I spent a couple years deploying and integrating IBM MQ, and I own a couple of services currently that interact with it. It was (just a couple years ago) and probably still is more robust than current open source solutions, as long as you weren't planning on forking the code for some very specific use case that requires heavy modification, or the more likely situation of just wanting to save money. As far as message queues go for something like the federal reserve, IBM MQ is really the only option that wouldn't raise a lot of eyebrows in the industry. The Fed is not the kind of institution that I think people would be lenient on for being open and innovative with their software solutions, banks really need to know that this thing is going to work and they all run IBM MQ themselves already. Not to mention the integration possibilities with Db2 and IMS, which are both huge in finance. My only complaint is that it is very expensive. That's the story with most of the kind of hardcore technical products IBM sells that are likely to wind up near mainframes. I'd imagine the Fed gets a sizeable discount though.
- MBCook 3y ago
  Being able to publicly claim your product as the one that underlies part of the federal reserve banking system has got to be worth some real money to IBM.
  - sjdmdlakziggy 3y ago
    That's part of it I'm sure, but it's much more than just advertising. What bank is going to make a risky move to a new message queueing service to save a few bucks when all their connections with the Fed use IBM's? And the hook there goes even deeper, because all of this stuff is deeply integrated with your databases.
- pas 3y ago
  can you please compare this IBM mainframe plus MQ stack with distributed and sufficiently redundant Kafka, for example?
  - sjdmdlakziggy 3y ago
    I can try, but the difficulty there is that Kafka is not really a traditional message queue system and the use cases are different. In short though, redundancy isn't sufficient to solve the reliability issues inherent in financial applications and transaction processing. If you want througput, Kafka is the better option. Use a message queue for transaction processing against a specific target, where it is a requirement for you to have guaranteed, one-time and one-time only delivery, and possibly that its secret and should only be delivered to one target. You should conceptualize Kafka as being a tool to maintain a sort of distributed, global state. A message queue is more like getting served to go to court. Technically, Kafka is an event stream, not a message queue (this can be confusing because event streams are often implemented at a surface level like message queues). The difference between an event and a message on a conceptual level is important though. There's plenty of good literature out there if you want to dig deep into the difference.
    - pas 3y ago

rodgerd 3y ago

I mean it pre-dates probably every open source MQ implementation, for starters.

wredue 3y ago

It’s a little especially strange as IBM hasn’t exactly made a great reputation for themselves over the last several years. Name dropping IBM makes me think that the reserve is generally not confident and is ready to blame IBM for what they expect to happen.

brewdad 3y ago
More likely, everyone in charge of this project on the government side is over 55 and still think of IBM as a signal of quality and reliability.
- Nemo_bis 3y ago
  Wasted opportunity though. The ECB is adopting Kafka. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecb.prototype_summary20230526~71d0b26d55.en.pdf https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/ecb.prototype_summar...
  - wslh 3y ago
    Kafka is not the same of MQ.
- dralley 3y ago
  There is a huge variation in "quality" across IBM's product line. There are still a few sectors where they are legitimately top-tier competitors, and there are others where they're a joke. Half the banking sector runs on IBM and has been running on IBM for decades. They know the domain well and have legitimate credibility for being reliable. It's not comparable to some of their other markets.
ratg13 3y ago
IBM MQ has been the standard for message queues for literal decades. Hitching a horse to a different technology platform that has only been around for a few years to complete a project that should last for many more decades would be an architectural choice that would only lead to high costs and high risk of major changes in the future and puts the whole system at risk.

throwawayForMe2 3y ago

The Fed has been using IBM MQ for connectivity for over 20 years for their outward facing services such as Fedwire and National Net Settlement.