> > With the current *RT release? > > Yes. The crux of the issue that you can't have two servers responsible > for updating the same records in the table, and that you can't have two > servers both expected to react to changes in those records on an > instantaneous basis (which is why you can't share the table across two > active servers and expect both of them to be aware of where the peers are). > > If the two servers service distinctly separate groups of endpoints, they > can share the same table since they won't care about the other server's > entries. If the two servers service the same endpoints but in an > active/passive arrangement, that would also work.
The second paragraph is what I was basically referring to when I mentioned removing the word 'dynamic'. I kind of sensed some of the discussion was relative to simply sharing a database (without having two dynamic & active * servers), others kind of referring to multihost load-sharing, and then your comment about dynamic registration for a device (iax client). More/less a human communications issue as to what the OP might have been referring to. Rich _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
