On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 15:11 -0400, Scot L. Harris wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 13:23, Patrick wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 12:04 -0400, Scot L. Harris wrote:
> > >
>
> > > Depending on the costs of taking an outage you may be better off having
> > > a cold spare handy to replace the switch or device that fails.
> >
> > The organization has simply decided there shall not be an outage of the
> > service (which means indivual parts can blow up as long as the service
> > remains up) so the cost of adding redundancy till you drop is not an
> > issue. Obviously, next to the active redundancy, we could always add a
> > few cold spares :)
> >
> > Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
>
> That is unusual. :) Most of the time after designing a gold plated
> redundant system with no single points of failure the customers look at
> the cost and decide that they don't need things quite that bullet
> proof. :)
exactly!!!, Scott and then if you want real-time sync?? ummm well, you
better bring your wallet!
>
> To achieve zero down time for the service you will need resolve that
> clustering issue with the PBX software. As you indicate that is going
> to be difficult. The closest I came to something like that was some
> Checkpoint firewalls I had setup in a VRRP configuration. They shared
> the tables listing the connections being routed through them so if one
> rolled over and the other took over the connections in theory would not
> have to be reestablished through the backup firewall.
>
> Hopefully the asterisk software has a feature that will handle that for
> you. The other parts of the network can be built in a redundant mode.
>
> Good luck!
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
