[Asterisk-Users] Hardware to build an Enterprise AsteriskUniversal Gateway

[WipeOut]

Rich Adamson wrote:

>>Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>I would set the "Enterprise Class" bar at five 9's reliability
>>>>(about 5.25 minutes per year of down time) the same
>>>>as a Class 4/5 phone switch. This would require redundant
>>>>design considerations in both hardware and software.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>To turn around, let's discuss what we need to focus on to get
>>Asterisk there:
>>
>>Here's a few bullet points, there's certainly a lot more
>>* Linux platform stability - how?
>>** Special demands when using Zaptel cards
>>* Redundancy architecture
>>* Development/stable release scheme
>>
>>Then we have some channel demands, like
>>* Better support for SRV records in the SIP channel
>>
>>More?
>>    
>>
>
>Better sip phone support for primary/secondary proxy (and failover)
> (note: some phones don't support a second proxy at all; some say they
>  do, but fail at it.)
>
>Maybe some sort of HSRP (hot spare standby protocol, or whatever)
>
>Some form of dynamic config sharing between pri/sec systems
>
>Won't mention external pstn line failover as that's sort of a separate
>  topic, or loss of calls in flight, etc.
>
>I'd guess part of the five-9's discussion centers around how automated
>must one be to be able to actually get close?  If one assumes the loss
>of a SIMM the answer/effort certainly is different then assuming the 
>loss of a single interface card (when multiples exist), etc.
>
>I would doubt that anyone reading this list actually have a justifiable
>business requirement for five-9's given the expontential cost/effort
>involved to get there. But, setting some sort of reasonable goal
>that would focus towards failover within xx number of seconds (and
>maybe some other conditions) seems very practical. 
>
>  
>
A failover system does not solve the scalability issue.. which means 
that you have a full server sitting there doing nothing most of the time 
when if the load were being balanced across the servers in a "cluster" 
senario you would also have the scalability..

Also a failover system would typically only be 2 servers, if there were 
a cluster system there could be 10 servers in which case five 9's should 
be easy..

Later..