> Am 02.07.2018 um 00:12 schrieb Michael Knill
> <michael.kn...@ipcsolutions.com.au>:
>
> Hi Michael
>
> Sorry I probably shouldn't have called it HA as that is more as you
> described. Maybe it would be better calling it System Failover instead.
> Keeping them in sync should be pretty easy and I can just exclude files that
> are different. I would make the failover time fairly long so it only did it
> when it was truly broken. The failover script would enable the interfaces
> which are addressed the same as the primary. Management would be via a
> separate interface.
>
> So do you think it could work with WAN Failover?
Needs to be tested very thoroughly.
Maybe the clients will cache not only the IP-address of the server, but also
the MAC-address.
Another approach would could be the "Server 1" + "Server 2" option, that many
IP-phones offer (never tested it though), to get around the IP-address
problematic:
> Regards
> Michael Knill
>
> On 1/7/18, 9:07 pm, "Michael Keuter" <li...@mksolutions.info> wrote:
>
>
>> Am 01.07.2018 um 01:42 schrieb Michael Knill
>> <michael.kn...@ipcsolutions.com.au>:
>>
>> Hi Group
>>
>> Tell me if I am totally off track but I have been wondering for a while how
>> I can do Astlinux HA e.g. having a primary and standby box
>> So what do you need for this:
>> • Monitoring of the primary Astlinux server
>> • Run a script if connectivity lost
>> • Some sort of timers to prevent flapping
>> • Email notification to indicate that it has occurred
>> • Config sync between the two
>>
>> When I considered the list, isn’t 1) to 4) actually already available with
>> WAN Failover? Your monitor IP is the address of the other box?
>> Can you failover to the same interface?
>>
>> Interesting thought!
>>
>> Regards
>> Michael Knill
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> for "real" HA clusters usually a "Virtual IP" is used (where the SIP
> clients connect to), which is then "switched" to to real IP of the actice
> node.
> For Linux there are a few solutions:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Address_Redundancy_Protocol
> https://github.com/jedisct1/UCarp (though the "ucarp.org" domain seem to
> now go to some Asian site)
>
> https://serverfault.com/questions/276170/alternatives-to-heartbeat-pacemaker-and-corosync
>
> I also got requests from a few customers a while ago, and we found it
> simpler just to use 2 identical boxes configure them the equally and put one
> offline in the shelf.
> In case of problem just switch the boxes.
> The only issue is to keep the boxes in sync (because both have the same
> IP).
> We used rsync to a server share, switched of the actice box for a few
> minutes afterhours and occacionally synced the offline box to that (we
> excluded a few hardware/MAC related files).
> You also can give them 2 different IPs, and change the IP in case of a
> problem.
>
> But to be honest: I do Asterisk/AstLinux stuff since 2007, but except an
> old water damage case (with only one net5501 under water that survived, but
> not the internal ISDN PCI card), I never had an issue that an AstLinux box
> broke and we really needed the Failover, except for testing, that it actually
> works as expected :-).
> In all other problem cases either the power was down, the ISP/internet
> connection was down/had issues or the SIP provider had problems :-).
>
> Michael
Michael
http://www.mksolutions.info
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Astlinux-users mailing list
Astlinux-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users
Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to
pay...@krisk.org.
