Asterisk
2006-Jan-03 14:41 UTC
Using *RT for HA purposes was: [Asterisk-Users] Realtime MultipleAsterisk boxes, iaxusers
>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.In my case I would be using DNS round robin. So a UA would only be registering to one * server at a time. So wouldn't in fact be an active/passive? If not could I call the Asterisk Manager Interface from my java fastAGI to grab the sip channel status on each server? I have not use the Manager interface before so I don't know how fast it is, but does this sound like it would work? To answer a previous poster. My issue for me is high availability and scalability. Thanks Doug -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Kevin P. Fleming Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:13 PM To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: Re: Using *RT for HA purposes was: [Asterisk-Users] Realtime MultipleAsterisk boxes, iaxusers Mike Fedyk wrote:> 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). _______________________________________________ --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
Kevin P. Fleming
2006-Jan-03 16:43 UTC
Using *RT for HA purposes was: [Asterisk-Users] Realtime MultipleAsterisk boxes, iaxusers
Asterisk wrote:> In my case I would be using DNS round robin. So a UA would only be > registering to one * server at a time. So wouldn't in fact be an > active/passive?No. You have said that you want the _other_ servers to be aware of that phone's registration and be able to deliver calls to it directly. That will not work. If you want the other servers to send calls to that phone through the server it registered with, then yes, that can easily be done.