10 Replies Latest reply on Jul 1, 2013 12:51 PM by mbrison

    Fail Over Engine vs Hot Standby?

      Has anyone come across a comparison between these two products? Given their similar function and the fact that Hot Standby seems to have been discontinued, this is the kind of thing I would have thought would have been included in the product release.


      Thanks in advance.

        • Re: Fail Over Engine vs Hot Standby?

          hot standby was only for NPM, no modules...

          • Re: Fail Over Engine vs Hot Standby?

            The response below is right.  But to expand on that further.  HSE only watch the polling engines, it did not watch the services or the modules or EOC.  This FoE is a much richer set of functionality that allows you to define behavior of when a service fails (restart service, restart app, failover etc.).  Feel free to send me a PM via thwack I have a chart which differs the two I am happy to send you

            • Re: Fail Over Engine vs Hot Standby?

              I'm a bit confused on the licensing/costs, I've come across Orion users that have smaller numbers of elements, say SL250 and also APM 50 monitors who want to have failover in place. For these guys the cost of the SW FoE engines cannot be justified,  in some cases it works out more than the licences did in the first place!

              We arent going down the road of thinking that smaller Orion implementations wont need failover are we?

              • Re: Fail Over Engine vs Hot Standby?

                I see that this posting is old, but wanted to share my experience with FOE for anybody researching problems with installing and/or alternatives for implementing FOE.

                We have been using FOE for a little over a year and I can say that we've had a lot of problems with it.  We are not able to easily patch the standby server with our normal patching process.  Antivirus definitions do not update properly.  Visibility into the health of the standby server is very limited.  Upgrading modules is very painful and intensive.  Also, the license are relatively expensive when you have multiple modules.

                We have had a fair share of adventures with FOE compatability as well.  We use SCOM on our servers and the SCOM services do not behave well when a failover occurs.  We've made it work, but it was difficult. We also use ComVault.  This simply has problems with the standby server being offline for any length of time.  Lastly, but almost more importantly, there is a Windows Password that the domain shares with the server.  This password isn't used for anything outside of identification to the domain.  If this password expires and the system is not on the wire, when it comes back online, it has the wrong password.  This is not something that can be easily replicated between servers.  Again, we've developed a way around this, but it is unique to this design.  We've really broke a lot of standards with our server team to allow FOE in our environment.  A standby option with boot from SAN, in my opinion, is a much better solution, but we never tested this functionality with SW to see how the app behaves on a system with a differen GUID.

                On paper, the FOE concept is great, but I am finding the managability of the product less than efficient and there are a lot of short comings.

                The one thing that FOE does that I don't know how to replicate elsewhere is to give you a failover option that is quick (assuming you've addressed all the one-offs) and completely automated.  If you are running on a VM, I would think some of this functionality is less relevant because you can do a VMotion and have your server up at another location very quickly.  I am no VM expert, but I'm sure there are ways to trigger a VMotion if you have that kind of setup.  I hope I am not unique in saying this, but I have also not had luck with performance when running on a VM, so that isn't really an option for my environment.

                I would like to see what intents there are to better this product, but that is for another message board.