Failover without shared-network?

[Ken Roberts]

On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 14:14, Ken Roberts wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 13:18, David W. Hankins wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 19, 2006 at 12:42:46PM -0500, Ken Roberts wrote:
> > > The error message I got was in /var/log/messages.  When I started the
> > > server it complained that my failover peer could not be defined outside
> > > of a shared-network, or something similar.  Then the server would exit. 
> > 
> > I'm guessing you had 'failover peer "foo";' configured inside something
> > that was not a pool {} clause (eg a subnet {} or host {} or the root
> > scope or something).
> > 
> > Maybe too many }'s on the line above or something of that nature.
> > 
> > I think 'failover peer "foo";' was intended to be allowed inside a
> > shared-network declaration (to apply to all subnets and pools),
> > but that's not the general practice of config (in fact, this may
> > more likely be an artefact of early development that never got
> > removed).
> 
> 
> Maybe that's it.  I know I tried a global-context failover peer
> declaration at one point.
> 
> Thanks a bunch.  I now think I can get there from here, if I can figure
> out how to start the server in partner-down state at first.


I just tried this, setting up just one box as described but edited with
recommendations from you guys.  It seems to be working, but I'll test it
for a while.

Thanks a lot guys (and gals?) for the help.