On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Nicholas Bastin <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Junchang Wang <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Great post. > > > > I'm a bit puzzled about the paradigm with Flowvisor; What if Flowvisor > > fails? My understanding is that Flowvisor runs as a separate sever and > it's > > not easy that this server can support fault tolerance. > > While FlowVisor doesn't support HA as a feature of the service itself, > the method that Volkan illustrated does not require that FlowVisor be > aware of your HA configuration. It will incur some downtime, but it > will be small (and indeed if your switches can be configured in a > master-master or "equal" configuration, that downtime can be > considerably reduced). > I understand this big advantage. In actually, I was going to deploy FlowVisor according to Volkan's suggestion. My only concern is what happens if the server running FlowVisor fails. In that case, all controllers will loss connections to switches. Are there any methods that I can make the server running FlowVisor support fault tolerance? Thanks. --Junchang > > -- > Nick >
_______________________________________________ openflow-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/openflow-discuss
