[Freeswitch-users] HA clustering solution?

Łukasz Zwierko lzwierko at gmail.com
Wed Aug 27 05:15:09 PDT 2008

W dniu 27 sierpnia 2008 13:48 użytkownik James Green
<james.green at stealthnet.net> napisał:
> Łukasz Zwierko wrote:
>> Hi, Regarding HA, I don't suppose you'll be able to go without any
>> front-end, beacuse of IP-connectivity reasons, if you plan to work in
>> active-standby mode . Active box needs to have an unique IP, otherwise
>> each client will have to have 2 (or more) IP addresses configured.
>> As solution you can use a switch with ip routing based on heartbeat
>> (which can be a icmp ping or http get or others).  The idea is you
>> configure virtual ip on each of your boxes, and FS runs on this IP.
>> Boxes are only connected to your IP network through the switch. the
>> switch directs all traffic to only one of the boxes, checking the
>> heartbeat all the time. If one machine failes, trafic starts being
>> routed to the other box.
> And introduces a single point of failure which defeats the objective.
> Having TWO IP addresses to connect to allows software to simply try
> again on the other address. It also reduces the burden of administration
> as your sysadmin can simply remove a dodgy machine our of the list. Of
> course, the added bonus of a proxy is that it needs few configuration
> updates and usually less software to be installed; can also act as a
> firewall too...
>> With this solution you don't have to do any tricks to have a single IP
>> address for your clients. there are of course other solutions, this
>> one gives you the shortest switch time though.

OSPF what? What I am talking about was to have TWO FS machines runnig
in active- standby mode, without having this configuration displayed
to users. Simplest solution for that is having the same virtual IP on
both boxes, and directing the traffic to only one of them. OSPF can
help with that, still it's not all that is to it. you're going to need
heartbeat info, not just link state. I admit the 2 boxes-on one switch
is not the best idea, still some means of failure detections,
triggering routing changes are vital.

>> As for the transferring call states between the machines, much of call
>> data is distibuted into modules. Now if we wanted to keep consistent
>> states between two FS instances, we'd have to come up with some
>> interfaces to firstly serialize the states and then 'revoke' them on
>> second machine. No that is of course doable, but I'd require enhacing
>> internal FS interfaces (especially those to endpoint modules) so that
>> a call controls in not-initial states could be created. That is a huge
>> amount of work, I don't suppose it's worth it.
> Indeed, particularly when working with inconsistent states following
> split brain unlocking.
> James

In the solution that i've seen, only session's in stable state
remained active after active-standby switch.


> _______________________________________________
> Freeswitch-users mailing list
> Freeswitch-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> http://www.freeswitch.org

More information about the FreeSWITCH-users mailing list