Yes it's mostly an implementation issue. We evaluated the situation and
think it's too complex and too much effort to enable HA plus VRRP, so we
decide to drop HA to simply and make things more stable.
Here are some reference of how RvR works, hope it would help.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluen
Hey Darren,
you daredevil you
I agree that it should be possible and I want it. My focus is with the
VPC routers. They should be redundant and highly available.
I like your take of creating a new provider/element though I think it
is necessary for the whole system to provide this at any time. So
The main thing that came to mind was the limitation on VPC where only one
network can have public load balancing. I looked into it a bit, and its
because the information is passed to the system vm in such a way that a
second LB config would completely overwrite previous configs. I was able to
get a
Well, here's the deal. I'm doing analysis right now to completely
revamp the management of systemvm. Basically get to a faster, more
reliable, more transparent way of doing things with far, far, far less
code. I'm planning on putting a thread up for discussion in about a
week. I want to have a
Ooh, do you take requests?
On Oct 9, 2013 7:30 PM, "Darren Shepherd"
wrote:
> I didn't read the whole thread yet, but at the end of the day it's sounds
> like an implementation issue. So I'll just naively say I'll fix that :)
>
> Darren
>
> > On Oct 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
> ale
I didn't read the whole thread yet, but at the end of the day it's sounds like
an implementation issue. So I'll just naively say I'll fix that :)
Darren
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Alena Prokharchyk
> wrote:
>
> HA redundant virtual router
On 10/9/13 4:55 PM, "Darren Shepherd" wrote:
>I don't quite understand why in the redundant VR use case you wouldn't
>want the individual VRs to have HA enabled. It seems the code will
>always set ha=false for RvR. I know if I loose one of the VRs, the
>other takes over, so that is redundant.
I don't quite understand why in the redundant VR use case you wouldn't
want the individual VRs to have HA enabled. It seems the code will
always set ha=false for RvR. I know if I loose one of the VRs, the
other takes over, so that is redundant. But don't you want the lost
VR to come back to life
