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 at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos