<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: APIC-EM - High Redundancy in Controllers</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511175#M2374</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Adam,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you for the explanation !&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:03:35 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>sjean2013</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-02-28T13:03:35Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>APIC-EM - High Redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511173#M2372</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Why do you need to deploy 3 VM for APIC-EM redundancy? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I have 2 ESX Servers, 2 VM are enough ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2019 12:36:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511173#M2372</guid>
      <dc:creator>sjean2013</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-01T12:36:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: APIC-EM - High Redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511174#M2373</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Sebastien,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is based on a fundamental concept in distributed computing called "split brain".&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If one VM is not able to see the other, it could be due to the other node failing or the link to the other node failing.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the scenario&amp;nbsp; of the link failing, both sides could potentially continue to process requests (split brain) which would cause issues when they were reconnected.&amp;nbsp; Which version of the "truth" would you trust?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To address this, if a cluster is partitioned, it needs to have &amp;gt;50% of the members active.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The minimum cluster size you need to do this is 3.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Which is why 3 is usually the minimum number of members for any HA cluster.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It is also why clusters often have odd numbers of members.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;With APIC-EM, if you only have 2 VM in a cluster, and one VM goes down, the cluster goes down.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Adam&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:48:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511174#M2373</guid>
      <dc:creator>aradford</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-02-28T08:48:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: APIC-EM - High Redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511175#M2374</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Adam,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you for the explanation !&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:03:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511175#M2374</guid>
      <dc:creator>sjean2013</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-02-28T13:03:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: APIC-EM - High Redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511176#M2375</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Adam,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For Multi hosts deployment, in Release notes 1.4, it is necessary to have 8x 900 GB HDD = 7,2 TB for each host in the APIC-EM cluster. It is outsize ...! &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it a mistake or is it correct ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 21:21:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511176#M2375</guid>
      <dc:creator>sjean2013</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-08T21:21:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: APIC-EM - High Redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511177#M2376</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;let me check.&amp;nbsp; I do not think that is the intention.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2017 08:50:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511177#M2376</guid>
      <dc:creator>aradford</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-09T08:50:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: APIC-EM - High Redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511178#M2377</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Adam,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do you have any news about HDD size on APIC-EM cluster ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;/Seb&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:04:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511178#M2377</guid>
      <dc:creator>sjean2013</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-14T15:04:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: APIC-EM - High Redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511179#M2378</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;no, but chasing it... thanks for reminder.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 08:11:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511179#M2378</guid>
      <dc:creator>aradford</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-15T08:11:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: APIC-EM - High Redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511180#M2379</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"&gt;Hi Adam, &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"&gt;We have a multihost cluster with 3 nodes running release 1.4.3.1009.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"&gt;This infrastructure worked for several months (we use Plug and Play application).&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Our APIC-EM is not reachable trough HTTPS, we have a “502 Bad Gateway” error message (we tried with Internet Explorer, Chrome and Firefox but we have the same issue). SSH still working without any problems.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 9.0pt; font-family: 'Arial',sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Did you already have this problem ?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 19:58:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/controllers/apic-em-high-redundancy/m-p/3511180#M2379</guid>
      <dc:creator>sjean2013</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-09-04T19:58:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

