04-10-2014 02:04 AM
I've seen some changes in the HA model in Aruba OS 6.3 and 6.4. However something is not clear to me.
Are there still advantages in using a master/master backup scenario? Or can we implement a active/active scenario using 2 masters.
04-10-2014 04:53 AM
What are you trying to accomplish ?
Because it will depend on your scenario and HA model you are trying to implement
One of the advantages of having Master/Master(backup) is been able to sync the internal databases and in 6.4 you can use the client state sync
Lead Mobility Engineer @ Integration Partners
AMFX | ACMX | ACDX | ACCX | CWAP | CWDP | CWNA
04-10-2014 05:54 AM
Yes I know the database sync is interesting. What I'm trying to accomplish is a fast failover in a master backup scenario. However after reading the user guide of 6.4 and looking into the HA topologies examples there isn't anything about the database synchronisation anymore.
So would fast failover work in a master-backup scenario since you don't work with a LMS but with VRRP. LMS would not be optimal since, depending on the setup, you will not know which controller would be active. Therefore you cannot know the correct LMS ip and backup LMS ip you need to setup.
04-10-2014 10:35 AM
No - in HA, the VRRP isn't tied anymore to this feature.
So - it really depends on what you need master -master backup for...
In HA with 6.4, there are two additional commands added, inter-controller heatbeat (to aid in inducing a failover), and client state sync. In addition, with 72xx controllers, we can allow a backup controller to "take over" APs over its stated AP capacity size.
So - is there a reason you needed master/backup master?
Finally, in the LMS field in the AP system profile, you can enter the primary controller in the HA group. Theoretically, you do not need a backup LMS. It can be used in case there is an issue with HA or for another +1 controller elsewhere.
Consulting Systems Engineer - ACCX, ACDX, ACMX
If you found my post helpful, please give kudos