Redundancy Support (something like fail over)
Open Discussion
As system administrator, I want redundancy support (something like fail over), so that I can successfully maintain uptime in the event of a failure.
For 99.99% uptime we need fail over support for WHM.
I have my own option for that with rsync which work every 3 hour, but is not perfect.
This is not big work to add as option, and can help everyone for their uptime status.
I like this idea 
cPanel, WebHost Manager and WHM are registered trademarks of cPanel, L.L.C. for providing its computer software that facilitates the management and configuration of Internet web servers.
I also consider this to be my #1 feature request. I support this feature request because every host requires this and most hosts are forced to create their own custom solutions. Custom solutions tend to be unreliable, time consuming and require proprietary support. I see many software applications and some virtual platforms that support this, but they are not geared toward cPanel and they are very cost prohibitive to implement. I know that I would be willing to purchase more and possibly pay more if cPanel included this feature.
I also consider this to be my #1 feature request. I support this feature request because every host requires this and most hosts are forced to create their own custom solutions. Custom solutions tend to be unreliable, time consuming and require proprietary support. I see many software applications and some virtual platforms that support this, but they are not geared toward cPanel and they are very cost prohibitive to implement. I know that I would be willing to purchase more and possibly pay more if cPanel included this feature.
Are this and http://features.cpanel.net/responses/as-a-server-administrator-i-want-to-have-multiple-remote-apache-servers-so-that-if-a-server-fails-users-will-be-directed-to-a-working-server not the same concept?
Are this and http://features.cpanel.net/responses/as-a-server-administrator-i-want-to-have-multiple-remote-apache-servers-so-that-if-a-server-fails-users-will-be-directed-to-a-working-server not the same concept?
Hi Travis, the link you just posted is only one piece of the redundancy or high-availability needs. Aside from Apache, there are several other components that would need to fail-over somehow. Just having Apache fail-over does not really help much because all other services would be down (mail, database, etc.)
I posted a new topic in the Core Services category a few days ago, but i haven't seen it appear yet. It has a better explanation of what kind of redundancy (high-availability) we need. I would like to add more detail to that topic but I don't see it posted yet. Can you check on this?
Hi Travis, the link you just posted is only one piece of the redundancy or high-availability needs. Aside from Apache, there are several other components that would need to fail-over somehow. Just having Apache fail-over does not really help much because all other services would be down (mail, database, etc.)
I posted a new topic in the Core Services category a few days ago, but i haven't seen it appear yet. It has a better explanation of what kind of redundancy (high-availability) we need. I would like to add more detail to that topic but I don't see it posted yet. Can you check on this?
Implement the service! :D
Implement the service! :D
All these have been discussed over and over.
It is a MUST! Highly appreciated...
What do you think cPanel? When can we get it?
Please, listen to this and related topics.
All these have been discussed over and over.
It is a MUST! Highly appreciated...
What do you think cPanel? When can we get it?
Please, listen to this and related topics.
Replies have been locked on this page!