I'm not a developer so no need to ask in the dev list. As you say, they are well aware. My question is for the end users, to see if anyone else/others have some workarounds to these problems.
Thanks. Mike On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:39:25 -0400, Tony Graziano wrote: > Perhaps your questions are better suited the the sipx-dev list... > > The sipxecs HA option is an OPTION. It is, like sipxecs, a work in > progress. If you peek at the tracker there are a number of issues in > 4.1/4.2 and even now 5.0 being planned and addressed. I see a number of > issues relating to branch solutions in 5.0, but none directly address your > concerns. > Right now the HA feature maintains HA of some services like REGISTRATION > and CDR, but certain items, like VM and sipxconfig are being added to now > (like moving VM from sipx-media server to free switch), and until these > pieces are written it does not make sense (at least to me) that these get > the attention for HA until the media server migration is complete. > You are thinking CLUSTER. This has a different meaning to me than HA > (Master and Distributed, as opposed to Master and SLAVE). At present time > there is a MASTER, and is certainly a better option than most systems out > there. > It is agreed, and known, that the HA function does not replicate all > functions currently. I'd encourage you to ask some questions on the sipx- > dev list for more insight as to where this is going at the present time. > Tony > >>>> "li...@grounded.net" > NaN. 08/30/09 11:02 AM >>> > I'm kinda confused about the project at this point. I moved to this project > because I was tired of messing with asterisk. The promise of HA, clustering > and off loading the media were the motivating factors. > The clustering alone was a godsend. > > As I get to know this better, it's looking more like a not quite there > distributed setup, meant more for salability than high availability. If > that management server goes down, a lot of things seem to go with it, > including admin and users not having access to important web functions. > What else goes down with that main server? > > To me, a high availability cluster means my shared GFS web setup for > example. Nothing is tied to any one server, they all have equal roles. One > or more fail, makes no difference, *everything* keeps running. > It's even a distributed setup by default so I have redundant load balancers > on front of the web farm. I even have multiple paths to network storage in > case storage becomes unavailable. > Now that's HA :). > > It's too bad sipx wasn't built on something like the above, that would have > been wonderful, again, unless I've not found that one document that > explains how to go about getting real HA. Though, your answer also confirms > that this is something on the planning table which is good to hear. > > So, some questions on things that could help; > > 1: Is there a way of moving the user web controls onto a separate web > server for the cluster? > I realize that the web functions are tied to the server itself but are > there any mods that I could make to allow for the services to be > centralized, allowing all hosts to have access? > > 2: Or, I was planning on running a couple of locations, but was going to > cluster them together. Should I instead be thinking more along the lines of > separate clusters and some method of syncing of the data? > > Mike > > > On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 05:45:50 -0400, Picher, Michael wrote: >> It doesn't do that now... sipxconfig only runs on the master. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org >> [mailto:sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org] On Behalf Of >> li...@grounded.net >> Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 6:33 AM > To: sipx-users >> Subject: [sipx-users] Redundancy Questions: Data/HTML Sharing >> >> I notice that the web server is on the primary and that the other >> servers don't have the full pages. >> What happens when the main server is down and the users are trying to >> reach the web pages? >> >> When being used in redundant manner, should any data/pages be shared >> between servers? >> >> Mike >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ >> > > </li...@grounded.net>
_______________________________________________ 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/
