[cisco-voip] CUCM Cluster Redundancy

[Ahmed Abd EL-Rahman]

Thanks Brian,
          I totally agree with you, I also have read in the SRND and didn’t find anything suggesting this approach, this idea was raised from the client side and I preferred to double check with the experts before I answer him.

Thank again.



Best Regards

Ahmed Abd EL-Rahman
Senior Network Engineer

From: bmeade90 at gmail.com [mailto:bmeade90 at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Brian Meade
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 5:16 PM
To: Ahmed Abd EL-Rahman
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM Cluster Redundancy

Ahmed,

I don't think this is a good route to go.  Really you should have no dependence on the publisher besides configuration updates so it shouldn't be anything that affects operation.

I would be concerned that the subscribers would have a more updated version of the database than the cold-standby publisher.

Brian

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Ahmed Abd EL-Rahman <Ahmed.Rahman at bmbgroup.com<mailto:Ahmed.Rahman at bmbgroup.com>> wrote:
Hi All,
          I have a UC cluster V10.5 on 2 UCS Blade servers having 1 Pub and 4 Subs, and I’d like to ask if there is any need or benefit from having a cold standby virtual machine for the Pub server (a replicated VM for the Pub which is turned off to backup Pub functionality in case of Pub failure), and also if the license will be valid on this cold standby VM for the Pub so that if the main Pub fails and we turned on the cold standby Pub VM everything will be fine and the operation continues normally.

Waiting your feedback.


Best Regards

Ahmed Abd EL-Rahman
Senior Network Engineer

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20150320/9d45a683/attachment.html>