c2w connection to web bridge connection failure?

[Meddane]

What is the cause of the following error of c2w connection between webbridge and callbridge ( cisco cms).

host:server:  WARNING : C2W connection to web bridge f8dfe3a2-10d4-43f8-ac16-3956efbb112e: connection failure

[b.winter]

The failure can be anything.

What are the lines from the syslog before and after this single line?

[Meddane]

@b.winterbelow the lines before and after the message error:

Apr 13 08:42:15.703 user.info CMS4 sfpool: database primary connection status: node: 10.1.5.61, connections in use: 37, max connections: 750
Apr 13 08:43:15.678 user.info CMS4 sfpool: database primary connection status: node: 10.1.5.61, connections in use: 37, max connections: 750
Apr 13 08:43:23.590 user.warning CMS4 host:server: WARNING : C2W connection to web bridge f8dfe3a2-10e4-43f8-ac16-3236efbb134e: connection failure
Apr 13 08:44:15.743 user.info CMS4 sfpool: database primary connection status: node: 10.1.5.61, connections in use: 37, max connections: 750
Apr 13 08:44:47.553 user.info CMS4 host:server: INFO : mf BEEF0106: mf buffer stats Ctrl rx 21 tx 361/2 buffer 0/1750 Data rx 0 tx 0/1 buffer 0/9
Apr 13 08:44:47.553 user.info CMS4 host:server: INFO : mf BEEF0106: app buffer stats Ctrl rx 363 tx 0/21 Data rx 0 tx 0/0
Apr 13 08:45:15.725 user.info CMS4 sfpool: database primary connection status: node: 10.1.5.61, connections in use: 37, max connections: 750

Note the FQDNs in the WebBridge API configuration c2w:// <FQDN>:9999, are included in the SAN of the callbridge and webbridge certificates (chain and server certificates).

Below the design deployment

CMS1, CMS2 and CMS3 with database cluster. And CMS4 with only WebBridge and CallBridge services and it is connected to the database cluster using the database cluster connect < IP ADD of the primary database>.

[Ovindo Prastyo Utomo]

Hi Meddane,

are you able to solve this issue?

we have similiar issue with our CMS version 3.4.1 and 3.6

[Meddane]

@Ovindo Prastyo Utomo  After investigation, the problem is that the node where there is a problem was upgraded from 2.9 to 3.4 directly.