Sérgio Charrua
Tel.: +351 21 130 71 77
Email : sergio.charrua@voip.pt
|
This message and any files or documents attached are strictly confidential or otherwise legally protected. It is intended only for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee or have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy or disclose it or its contents or use it for any purpose. Please also note that transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. |
Thanks for your input Sergio!Our current active-standby uses keepalived to manage the shared IP between the servers. It works fine. Now we are trying a new architecture as a step towards a public cloud deployment.On Tue, 3 Nov 2020, 21:45 Sergio Charrua, <sergio.charrua@voip.pt> wrote:Patrick,I would rely on Corosync and Pacemaker for failover, using a shared IP address between (active + passive) servers. Once the active goes down, Pacemaker switches the shared IP to the passive server that will then become the active server.Hope this helps,Sérgio Charrua
Tel.: +351 21 130 71 77
Email : sergio.charrua@voip.pt
This message and any files or documents attached are strictly confidential or otherwise legally protected.
It is intended only for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee or have received this email in error, please inform the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy or disclose it or its contents or use it for any purpose. Please also note that transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 9:55 AM Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:_______________________________________________Hello,
is the active-active architecture still relying on a single shared ip that is migrated between the systems, or do you use two shared ips and each system is associated with one in normal operational mode? Or is anycast?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 03.11.20 03:38, Patrick Wakano wrote:
Thanks for the info Daniel! Much appreciated!Our previous architecture was active-standby with VIP and keepalived, however we are moving towards an active-active approach.Cheers,Patrick Wakano
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 04:40, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I try to stay away from infrastructure, so I do not know the exact technical details and whether it uses Fault Tolerance, but I have customers using VMware, some with rather busy sip servers (50000+ active users) and all runs smooth there. But in this specific case, there is no DMQ, data is shared via database (MySQL), the secondary system being in standby ready to take over the IP of the primary server.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 02.11.20 07:31, Patrick Wakano wrote:
Hello list,Hope you are all good!
Recently, the issue https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/issues/2535 has been investigated and the utilization of the feature vsphere Fault Tolerance is linked as a source of network latency and probably CPU allocation latency. This increases the chances of the mentioned issue to happen.So I would just like to ask if anyone out there is using Kamilio in a VMware environment with Fault Tolerance on? How is the experience?
Kind regards,Patrick Wakano
_______________________________________________ Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List sr-users@lists.kamailio.org https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- www.asipto.com www.twitter.com/miconda -- www.linkedin.com/in/miconda Funding: https://www.paypal.me/dcmierla
Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List
sr-users@lists.kamailio.org
https://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users