| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 86.1 | | OPG::PHILIP | And through the square window... | Wed Aug 04 1993 15:20 | 28 |
|
>> 1. Is a failover configuration with the CM possible ?
>> so one can configure two CM in a master/slave relation.
The software itself has no mechanism to allow you to do this, it is on
our list of things to do in the future, and a lot of the core code for
it will be in V1.1
You could achieve this in the same way we used to do it with VCS by using
a tool such as DCM (or PSW) to monitor the VCS system, if it crashed or
disappeared of the net for any reason, then we would start VCS on the
"backup" system automatically by means of a DCM (or PSW) action routine.
>> 2. Security issues of the terminalserver.
>> Is the terminalserver secure against misusage and what should be
>> considered ?
There is absolutely nothing to stop another "user" accessing the port
on a terminal server via LAT protocol if that port is not in use. If
you are using TELNET to servers such as the DECserver 90M you may be
able to use the Kerberos authentication facilities to achieve some
security, although this is guesswork on my part, I have never tried
to use the kerberos functionality.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Phil
|
| 86.2 | Put them on hold. | HOBBLE::WURZBERGER | Ron Wurzberger DTN-341-2430 DCO-217 | Wed Aug 04 1993 16:05 | 8 |
| Under VCS, there is a command procedure which associates user
designated LAT ports with certain VCS processes. When VCS starts up,
those processes allocate the designated LAT ports. I am able to
designate more ports than are currently specified in the console
configuration file. This allows me to "hold" those empty ports that I
plan on using latter, but would also allow me to block out other users,
if that was my goal. Perhaps a similar scenario is possible using the
Console Manager software startup procedure.
|
| 86.3 | | STAR::JFRAZIER | What color is a chameleon on a mirror? | Thu Jan 05 1995 19:53 | 11 |
| Re: .1
> The software itself has no mechanism to allow you to do this, it is on
> our list of things to do in the future, and a lot of the core code for
> it will be in V1.1
Now that the current version is V1.5, are you any closer to providing failover?
James
|
| 86.4 | | OPG::PHILIP | And through the square window... | Fri Jan 06 1995 10:02 | 10 |
| James,
No, V1.5 is functionally the same as V1.1, we had to change the version
number for those people who upgrade from VCS V1.4
You should look out for failover in V2.0, and before you ask, no I dont
have any timeframe.
Cheers,
Phil
|
| 86.5 | Failover update please | SAC::JEPSON | EntropyBuster | Tue Jul 18 1995 10:48 | 17 |
|
I have a customer on V1.5 who is very interested in the
failover facility that a previous note says is likely for
V2.0.
Can anyone update me on this? A quick summary of what the
failover option will do, confirmation of likely release
version and expected release date would be very helpful.
If a release date is difficult, can you supply a suitably
pessimistic estimate? My customer will need to implement
something in the next 10 months or so and needs to understand
what PCM may provide.
All help gratefully received.
Andy
|
| 86.6 | | OPG::PHILIP | And through the square window... | Tue Jul 18 1995 11:01 | 10 |
| Andy,
You need to talk with product management about this Rae Collier-Kung is
our product manager (MUZICK::KUNG).
Having said that, dont hold your breath for this, it may never happen
in PCM's lifetime.
Cheers,
Phil
|