Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Unity Primary Fails over to Unity Secondary

For some strange reason our Primary Unity Server fail over to our Secondary Server. We are running 3.1.5

I know this is little inofrmation, but I can see nothing out of the ordinary.

Does any bugs exist with failover?

Thanks,

Steve

5 REPLIES
New Member

Re: Unity Primary Fails over to Unity Secondary

The same thing happened to us last week. We thought it may have been due to changes we were making in Unity, like importing Exchange users, running bulkedit, and the like. I thought it was the primary was busy with processing??

It was annoying to say the least so I disabled failover (in advanced settings I believe) and things settled out.

However, the servers had to be rebooted because of network change, and both servers can back up inactive. So maybe you don't want to do that.

What version service packs are you running on the SQL database?

Thanks.

Peter

Gold

Re: Unity Primary Fails over to Unity Secondary

The most common cause of this is a call coming into the failover server which automatic takes the primary offline. What type of switch is this integrated with?

Keith

New Member

Re: Unity Primary Fails over to Unity Secondary

did you configure the voiceports the same on both Unity Servers?

If so, check this url http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/voice/c_unity/unity31/integuid/callma31/cm31_313/itcicmip.htm

Peter

New Member

Re: Unity Primary Fails over to Unity Secondary

The ports on the primary server are failing, then fail over is activated. Strangely, this occurred after upgrading the ports and installing a second Unity server with fail over.

A couple of bug reports exist.. We are runnning 3.1.3

Gold

Re: Unity Primary Fails over to Unity Secondary

I significant amount of critical defects in regards to failover were corrected in 3.1(4). Enough were corrected to make the blanket statement that anyone running failover should be at 3.1(4) or later.

I would upgrade to 3.1(5) it if were I.

Keith

112
Views
0
Helpful
5
Replies
CreatePlease login to create content