Hi John
In my particular application, I'm thinking of a socket to a [third-party]
remote server. My application would attach to the remote server, via TCP,
and receive data. The remote server is designed such that many clients can
attach and receive [the same] data, so at my end I only want to attach one
client at a time. I have to decide, for my self, which client app. That's
why I want to reproduce some sort of failover application, ideally using
existing technology, but otherwise using a standard, well-proven technique..
Charles
"John Bell" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:46:08 +0100, "Charles" <>
> wrote:
>
>>Hi John
>>
>>Thanks for the reply. I have looked at the link and it appears to be a
>>discussion on the generics of failover clustering, which is really what I
>>was meaning by "roll my own".
>>
>>The token idea is interesting, though, as it would seem that if neither
>>server can establish the owner of the token then they would both assume
>>the
>>role of master; for example, where the servers haven't crashed but the
>>communication between them is lost.
>>
>>Charles
>>
>>
>>"John Bell" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:23:17 +0100, "Charles" <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi all
>>>>
>>>>A bit of a general question, hence the cross-posting.
>>>>
>>>>I have a .NET application running on a Windows Server 2008 server. For
>>>>resilience, I want to run it on another server simultaneously, but only
>>>>one
>>>>instance of the application can be 'active' at any one time. In the
>>>>event
>>>>that the active instance of the application fails for some reason, I
>>>>want
>>>>the passive one to take over. What techniques are there available to
>>>>make
>>>>this an automatic process?
>>>>
>>>>Of course, I can roll my own, as it were, and I would be interested in
>>>>how
>>>>other people would implement a bespoke solution, but are there any
>>>>built-in
>>>>mechanisms in .NET or Windows Server, or indeed SQL Server, that will
>>>>make
>>>>this more straightforward?
>>>>
>>>>TIA
>>>>
>>>>Charles
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is sounds like you need to look into clustering
>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff650328.aspx#
>>>
>>> John
>
>
> I don't think they could both be live as the resource could only be
> assigned to one node. But it is possible to get into a state where the
> are constantly swapping over, which is why you need good comms between
> the nodes.
>
> John
>
Linear Mode
