cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
658
Views
5
Helpful
4
Replies

UCCX jTDS SQL Failover

dlcharville
Enthusiast
Enthusiast

With jTDS stuck using JDBC 3.0, we are needing a feature which was introduced in JDBC 4.0, called MultiSubnetFailover.  This provides failover to a AlwaysOn availability group (AG) in MSSQL.  It doesn't appear UCCX supports a straight JDBC URL and always requires jTDS.

 

Has anyone else run into this and possibly a fix?  Or has everyone moved on to web based requests?


Thanks,

Dan

4 Replies 4

Sean Lynch
Rising star
Rising star
Not entirely sure what you are trying to accomplish... But we did something like this where a datasource needed to be pointed to a single IP address / DNS entry for a set of redundant SQL server (hot standby). We pointed the datasource to an F5 load balancer to accommodate the fail-over process of the active/standby SQL servers for the application we created.
Hope this helps.
-Sean

Sean - thanks for the reply.  I'm not sure if using an F5 is an option I have available to me.

 

I'm surprised there aren't more posts about the lack of features that UCCX supports in regards to DB integration, because they are still stuck on using the outdated jTDS.

 

Thanks,

Dan

Sigh. I would venture a guess that there is a very small percentage of organizations taking advantage of all UCCX has to offer regarding integrating with 3rd party solutions and connectivity. The REST API was a huge improvement for our organization. Who knows how long it will be before JDBC becomes available.
Thought for you to try... I saw on another recent post, a recommendation to try using the "Failed Connection" output branch for the failover. Read step for the primary datasource, then on "Connection Failed" Read step for the failover datasource. I think this would work very much like placing an F5 in the middle of the connections. I may try it in my environment when I get back to work on Monday.
Hope this helps.
-Sean

Sean - yes, I saw that post about using the "Failed Connection" as failover.  That should work but for my call flow requirements, two separate DB Read steps and then one DB Get step are needed in succession .  Possible yes and what I may end up having to do, but does require a lot of steps to build in the failover.

Thanks,

Dan

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Recognize Your Peers