[Freeswitch-users] HA clustering solution?
james.green at stealthnet.net
Wed Aug 27 01:22:49 PDT 2008
Configuration: that should be easy using XML CURL to load what would
otherwise be in the conf/ XML files. I would strongly recommend looking
Call state I wouldn't like to comment on, I have not looked into it. I
would imagine it's unlikely to succeed based on the uuid of each call
only being known to the handler FreeSWITCH instance. I could have my
assumptions wrong of course.
I take it incoming calls would be asked to try each of several IPs in
turn until a connection is successful? Else you would need to "notice"
one instance was no longer active and ask whomever was routing calls to
it to divert.
I still prefer the idea of 2+ proxy boxes. It would be simpler to add
more as load increases, and far simpler to add additional IVRs (FS) into
a backend pool. Heartbeat solutions have potential issues such as single
point of failure and split brain.
Tom Warren wrote:
> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20080827/b59147ca/attachment-0002.vcf
More information about the FreeSWITCH-users