We are a Progress software house in the UK with over 200 sites. One of our customers has asked about Server Redundancy (high availability or fail-over) in particular Microsofts Cluster Server in conjunction with Progress 8 / 9.
Anyone using this or similar (or better e.g. endurance) to effect fault tolerence at server level with what results please reply?
From looking at MS cluster server I believe it would not enable seamless operation in the event of server failure since the shared memory and progress brokers would not be exactly duplicated at time of failure. I believe it would just restart Progress (using same database) on the other server resulting in failure for any running clients - but I may be wrong...
David,
You are right.
Our company is working with MS NT4 enterprise and
when one of our servers goes down the other starts the database but all the on going processses are disrupted.
We are now looking for a better and affortable (UNIX Linux ?) cluster solution.
Do you have experience with other cluster solutions ?
Peter COrnet
Systemmanager Euro Pool System.
"David Hutchings" wrote:
>
>We are a Progress software house in the UK with over 200
>sites. One of our customers has asked about Server Redundancy
>(high availability or fail-over) in particular Microsofts
>Cluster Server in conjunction with Progress 8 / 9.
>
>Anyone using this or similar (or better e.g. endurance)
>to effect fault tolerence at server level with what results
>please reply?
>
>From looking at MS cluster server I believe it would not
>enable seamless operation in the event of server failure
>since the shared memory and progress brokers would not
>be exactly duplicated at time of failure. I believe
>it would just restart Progress (using same database)
>on the other server resulting in failure for any running
>clients - but I may be wrong...