Hi James, I'd like to avoid front-ending the FS boxes and instead have them load-share amongst themselves or sit in a hot/standby arrangement while updating the other box(es) with call state and configuration changes. They would be connected directly via a closed tertiary network so that the heartbeat could be set to a very low value, and call state data would not traverse the same path as the call traffic. Am I just dreaming? Could a standby box take over call in progress when the primary fails?
Thanks, Tom On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 9:25 PM, James Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Warren wrote: >> I'd like to know if there is any plan for an HA solution for >> FreeSWITCH. I know the 'heartbeat' trick, but is there or will there >> be any way to mirror the configuration changes and even call state >> between two boxes in a sort of clustered arrangement? > > I don't think there's anything out of the box. I would imagine, much as > you can do with web servers, some form of R-R DNS exposing some proxies > that connect to 2+ FreeSWITCH/other boxen would essentially do the trick. > > The tricky part would be getting any new machines to announce themselves > to the proxies and getting the proxies to remove machines now out of > service. I'll be looking into that later... > > James > > _______________________________________________ > Freeswitch-users mailing list > Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > http://www.freeswitch.org > > _______________________________________________ Freeswitch-users mailing list Freeswitch-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
