Putting aide trying to pull together a redundant VM side. What happens if one builds a server which is to be VM only. The primary (A) and the secondaries (B, C and D) would know that VM is on server E?
Would the above be correct? So, based on what I've read in this thread, if primary goes down, so long as the rest stay up and server E is VM only, then the rest of the servers could continue reaching VM for users? On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:49:21 -0500, Tony Graziano wrote: > As I understand it, if someone is register to server B, and server A is the > master and has sipxconfig on it, and the link between them is broekn (or > server a expereinces a long term power outaage, etc.), then subscribers > registering to server B will still be able to subscribe. If user 300 > subscribes on server B, and his voicemail is on server B, then both of > those things should work, as I understand it. > > What does not happen, is voicemail is stored on server b, and does not > replicate anywhere else. I've seen discussions to try to pull this off in a > future version, but it sounds more than tricky. > > > I might be wrong, but this is my understanding. Someone please speak up if > I am incorrect. > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM, [email protected] <[email protected]> > wrote: >>> Not necessarily. Just the services that that node is responsible for. >>> Just >>> because sipXconfig is unavailable, it doesn't mean that everything >>> stops, >>> it just means you can't make changes. >>> >> >> Ah, now this is something I didn't know. I knew that making changes stops >> but it's never been clear if everything just keeps on going. >> So, while working on the primary node to get it back up for example, what >> happens to the rest of the cluster? Does it continue running on it's own >> until primary is back or does it break down after some time? >> >> Mike >> >> >>>> So, having a primary in one location, secondary machines in other >>>> locations, all via reliable non NAT networking still doesn't give me >>>> the >>>> redundancy I need to achieve. No matter how many secondary machines I >>>> have, there is always the problem of non of them being usable if the >>>> primary goes down. What I need is redundancy. >>>> >>>> The only way this seems possible is to have two sets of machines with >>>> identical accounts on both but then there is the matter of VM. Users >>>> will >>>> have their vm on one or the other system which is why I hoped there >>>> might >>>> be a way to either have two vm servers in sync or stand alone. >>>> While this might not mean HA on the vm side, it's something to work >>>> with >>>> at least which gets me closer to redundancy. >>>> >>>> For months, I've been trying to come up with a solution for this >>>> problem. >>>> Easy enough to have a redundant front end using SBC's but the sipx >>>> side >>>> eludes me. My primary need has been redundancy which is what I badly >>>> need. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sipx-users mailing list [email protected] >>>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users >>>> Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users >>>> sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sipx-users mailing list [email protected] >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users >> Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users >> sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ _______________________________________________ sipx-users mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
