We are implementing an MQ/IIB architecture where we will have one QM and one Broker each on 2 RHEL servers load-balanced with each other to divide incoming traffic. We have consumer applications which connect our servers through JMS bindings file. We also have IIB applications running on both of them.
Now, since one bindings file could have only one QMGR name while creating a connection factory, it's not recommended to keep different QM/Broker names on each servers. Since this bindings file would be shared with consumers, it has to be with unique QM name. But if we have same QM/Broker names on each server, all logs on IIB record and replay tool will have one Broker name (from both servers) which is again difficult to identify which server actually served the incoming request.
Could you please suggest best possible approach in such scenario? Or else suggest if above approach can be modified to achieve our goal.
In general it is not a good practice to have two queue managers with the same name. The same would be true for IIB brokers for the reasons you stated.
In the Binding file you can leave QMANAGER blank (null). This will allow the application to connect to any queue manager listening on the HOSTNAME and PORT that you specify.
If the queue managers on the 2 RHEL servers use the same port you could even set hostname to localhost and use the same binding file on both servers.
Example is below if both queue managers listened on the same port:
DEFINE CF(CF_NAME) QMANAGER() TRANSPORT(CLIENT) CHANNEL(MY.SVRCONN) HOSTNAME(localhost) PORT(1414)