Scott Lawrence wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 10:05 +0100, Keith Gearty wrote:
Basically from what I can gather, the intended purpose of HA systems
is load balancing, not true redundancy. It would be nice if it were
designed with both purposes in mind, but it doesn't seem to be.
I wouldn't say that... our strategy has been to use a redundancy
strategy that encompasses load-sharing so that for an HA service that
needs N systems to handle the load, you only need N+1 for HA. Keeping a
standby system is more expensive.
I would say that sipXecs is highly modular - different 'features' are
implemented by separate loosely coupled components. This modularity has
allowed us to incrementally upgrade a number of components (including a
major upgrade of the voicemail service coming in 4.2!). This has
allowed us to implement HA in some and not in others, which is a
two-edged sword - it means that the extra burdens of HA are not imposed
on every component (accelerating development and lowering system
overhead), but that HA is not available for all.
I'm interested in opinions on which services that are not currently
redundant that users thing should be. If you could pick just one
service for us to add HA to, what would it be?
SipXconfig. The ability to be able to administer the system through the
web interface while the primary server is down would make me seriously
consider using HA.
Keith.
_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
