Forum Discussion
Roman_80473
Nimbostratus
Nimbostratussynchronize changes in ACTIVE/STANDBY environment
Hi folks,
Does anyone know how to synchronize changes in an ACTIVE/STANDBY environment? Do I need to make the changes to an active node first (add new pool w members, add new vserver, etc)? Then, synchronize changes with standby using smth like System::ConfigSync::synchronize_configuration(CONFIGSYNC_BASIC)? Is the sequence (active->standby) required?
Any help is appreciated.
Roman
L4L7_53191The believe config sync action will push the configuration to the remote side. It shouldn't matter if you're on the standby system vs. the active: A push should be a push, regardless of the system state. That said, it's worth testing this in a lab or sandbox environment first to be sure.
Roman_80473Hi L4L7,
Thanks for a feedback. I thought sequence matters, for updating standby unit first renders active one out of sync and inaccessible to traffic for a fraction of time. I will test and post back.
Cheers,
Roman
hooleylistCirrostratus
I normally make changes on the active unit and then sync to the peer. Doing it the other way requires a 'b config install' and a 'b load' on the active unit. I've seen a b load on an active unit affect traffic processing.
So regardless of whether you're making the changes via the GUI or iControl, I'd try to avoid a config sync to the active unit.
Aaron- Roman_80473Aaron,
That makes sense, thanks for the post.
p.s. how do I award the right answer on this forum? - L4L7_53191A b load can most definitely affect traffic on a box that is processing traffic, so agree with the sequence that hoolio mentions. I must have misread the original question (if the active->standby sequence was a requirement, which it isn't). Thanks for the clarification.
-Matt - Roman_80473I did get the info, thank you for your help, guys. I just recall on some forums, like OTN, members would actually ask to evaluate their helpfulness to score points.
Roman - hooleylistDC doesn't really have that kind of feature (or perspective). I think the focus is more on sharing knowledge than scoring users.
Thanks regardless though. I'm glad you figured out a solution that works for you.
Aaron