Basically you run your application on a virtual host. If the host fails, the virtual host is brought down and restarted on a different hardware. Since it's HA, all information from the filesystem are preserved and the new host assumes the role of the old one (same ip, ...).
It seems to me that it's roughtly equivalent to Master/Slave. Just easier in our case to configure as we do it for several other apps already. Thanks, Aymeric. James.Strachan wrote: > > On 6/15/07, Aymeric Alibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Does anybody has experience using HP ServiceGuard package failover to >> provide >> HA? > > Afraid not. > > >> I would like to use it instead of a Master/Slave configuration. >> It seems to me that both configuration should be roughlty equivalent >> (with >> Master/Slave probably being faster to failover). >> >> Any remark/advice on that configuration? > > I don't know the HP product well but from a glance at their site it > looks like its mostly a HA storage system right? If thats the case you > could use the shared file based master/slave (and let the ActiveMQ > clients do their automatic failover from master to slave). > > http://activemq.apache.org/shared-file-system-master-slave.html > > -- > James > ------- > http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/HP-ServiceGuard---ActiveMQ-failover-tf3927386s2354.html#a11138802 Sent from the ActiveMQ - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
