> Scott Lawrence wrote: > > 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?
On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 14:41 +0100, Keith Gearty wrote: > 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. That one has some very interesting implications... now that we've got the configuration data centralized into sipXconfig properly (a major element of 4.0), it's not as hard as it used to be. Theoretically, we could replicate configuration from the master (the original system) to some standby configuration server, which could then be used if/when the original failed. The interesting questions all have to do with detecting when it's appropriate to allow the backup server to make a change, and which server is believed to 'own' the configuration. What would you expect to happen when the original master came back up? How automatic would you expect the change to be? Some of the tricky questions revolve around whether the active master has failed or is actually up but unreachable (some elements of the cluster are partitioned from others by some network failure). _______________________________________________ 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/
