I have written before about the different types of FusionPBX clusters. The first one is the one with the load balanced approach, in which it implements the active-active scheme but the fault tolerance relies on the ability of the endpoints to jump to the second best node. The second one is the one with the high availability approach, this is active-passive but the fault tolerance relies on the server end, the endpoints do not realize of any cluster existence. I have also said that each approach does not exclude the other, in other words, you can have a cluster combining the two techniques.
A load balanced with high availability cluster needs at least sever server, but the optimum deployment is with eleven.
There is no need to relist all the elements. Each data centre holds the same configuration:
In addition, there is an arbitrator server. The arbitrator is required as the database cluster needs to be 2*n+1 nodes (odd number).
I believe that if you have already read my other articles, I do not need to remind you that the behaviour of this deployment is far to be as a standalone server. I recommend to read them again if you do not remember. However, I will list the outstanding points. First the pros:
Now the cons:
Now, some side effects:
The information flow is the same as the high availability approach in each data centre and as the load balanced on the high-level view.
As this approach is a mix, the following table helps to understand.
|Kind of failure||Fault Tolerance Approach|
|Data centre failure||Load Balancing|
|One SIP node fails in one data centre||High Availability|
|Two SIP nodes fail in the same data centre||Load Balancing|
Easy, just send me a text in any of my social media accounts. I am sure we will get into an agreement and you will enjoy a brand new PBX Cluster.
Good luck!blog comments powered by Disqus
Most Read Posts in Technology
Read about IT, Migration, Business, Money, Marketing and other subjects.
Some subjects: FusionPBX, FreeSWITCH, Linux, Security, Canada, Cryptocurrency, Trading.