A couple of suggestions related to your architecture, but not necessarily your question: If you are adding the additional server as part of your server group to handle admin, recon, interfaces, etc. (ie. a lot of heavy liftingi), and if you have a load-balancer in front of these remedy servers, I would suggest that the load balancer does not route client traffic to this additional server. That way, you don't get clients ending up on your additional server and complaining about response times. Putting it in as part of the server group allows it to fail over in the event of an issue, which is nice. You can also install a local midtier on the additional server so that you can connect to it via the mid-tier directly, instead of through the load balancer. It also allows you to have server settings that do not necessarily correspond to other servers in your server group (like: Max Entries via GetList, Allow unqualified queries, etc...) which the Admins and/or interfaces would like. HTH. Terry
_____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joe D'Souza Sent: May-15-13 1:48 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly ** That is the whole reason for having server ranking operations, that can be disabled on some and enabled on some so each server has specific 'roles' for the lack of a better word. Maybe 'tasks' is a better word. Talking about your specific need - to dedicate one of the two servers for integrations, I wish it was possible to have server operations for web services specifically dedicated to a server or group of servers. That way I could assign a higher process timeout to that one or that group of servers. Cheers Joe _____ From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of patrick zandi Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:02 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ARS 8.1 Server Groups - but 1 outside slightly ** sounds good.. just asking.. for thoughts.. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Longwing, Lj <[email protected]> wrote: ** Patrick, I have never heard of a requirement that all nodes of a server group must be on the same architecture. Due to the fact that the server group is just signaling communication between the servers, I don't see it as a problem. The only time you would come against issues would be if your DB was something not supported by all platforms, like SQL Server for example, but as long as all nodes can connect to the DB, I can't see how it would be an issue. On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 7:01 AM, patrick zandi <[email protected]> wrote: ** Was wondering if anyone has made a server group of 2 servers same OS, and Architecture and 1 different. Possible impacts / problems, or is it in the docs not to do. which I did not notice. Scenario: 2 linux ARS servers in a group, add 1 windows ARS server and add to group. The windows server will be the Integration part / and reconciliation/ and admin / and for it to run specific jobs functions.. Requirement to run Windows Powershell scripts to do work on Exchange server farms from the 1 windows ARS server in the group, but the rest are linux. -- Patrick Zandi _ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" and have been for 20 years_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org "Where the Answers Are, and have been for 20 years"
