Thanks for your input Sergio! Our current active-standby uses keepalived to manage the shared IP between the servers. It works fine. Now we are trying a new architecture as a step towards a public cloud deployment.
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020, 21:45 Sergio Charrua, <sergio.char...@voip.pt> wrote: > Patrick, > > I would rely on Corosync and Pacemaker for failover, using a shared IP > address between (active + passive) servers. Once the active goes down, > Pacemaker switches the shared IP to the passive server that will then > become the active server. > > Hope this helps, > > *Sérgio Charrua* > > *www.voip.pt <http://www.voip.pt/>* > > Tel.: +351 <callto:+351+91+104+12+66>21 130 71 77 > > Email : *sergio.char...@voip.pt <sergio.char...@voip.pt>* > > This message and any files or documents attached are strictly confidential > or otherwise legally protected. > > It is intended only for the individual or entity named. If you are not the > named addressee or have received this email in error, please inform the > sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy or disclose > it or its contents or use it for any purpose. Please also note that > transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 9:55 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <mico...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> is the active-active architecture still relying on a single shared ip >> that is migrated between the systems, or do you use two shared ips and each >> system is associated with one in normal operational mode? Or is anycast? >> >> Cheers, >> Daniel >> On 03.11.20 03:38, Patrick Wakano wrote: >> >> Thanks for the info Daniel! Much appreciated! >> Our previous architecture was active-standby with VIP and keepalived, >> however we are moving towards an active-active approach. >> Cheers, >> Patrick Wakano >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 04:40, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <mico...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I try to stay away from infrastructure, so I do not know the exact >>> technical details and whether it uses Fault Tolerance, but I have customers >>> using VMware, some with rather busy sip servers (50000+ active users) and >>> all runs smooth there. But in this specific case, there is no DMQ, data is >>> shared via database (MySQL), the secondary system being in standby ready to >>> take over the IP of the primary server. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Daniel >>> On 02.11.20 07:31, Patrick Wakano wrote: >>> >>> Hello list, >>> Hope you are all good! >>> >>> Recently, the issue https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2535 >>> has been investigated and the utilization of the feature vsphere Fault >>> Tolerance is linked as a source of network latency and probably CPU >>> allocation latency. This increases the chances of the mentioned issue to >>> happen. >>> So I would just like to ask if anyone out there is using Kamilio in a >>> VMware environment with Fault Tolerance on? How is the experience? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Patrick Wakano >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing >>> Listsr-users@lists.kamailio.orghttps://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- >>> www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >>> Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla >>> >>> -- >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.comwww.twitter.com/miconda -- >> www.linkedin.com/in/miconda >> Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List >> sr-users@lists.kamailio.org >> https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users >> >
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users