<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic high availability for WFA in Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/high-availability-for-WFA/m-p/9774#M2004</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;hello folks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;as WFA becomes more integral to customer environments, there is an increased need to have high availability solutions available.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;have people implemented any HA versions of WFA + OnCommand Unified Manager ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;there is the simple answer of making the underlying platform (OS, VM) highly-available&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;there is also the more sophisticated approach of making the WFA application distributed with an HA database back end, somehow.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;what's been most effective?&amp;nbsp; any ideas or pitfalls?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:20:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>pwl</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:20:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>high availability for WFA</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/high-availability-for-WFA/m-p/9774#M2004</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;hello folks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;as WFA becomes more integral to customer environments, there is an increased need to have high availability solutions available.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;have people implemented any HA versions of WFA + OnCommand Unified Manager ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;there is the simple answer of making the underlying platform (OS, VM) highly-available&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;there is also the more sophisticated approach of making the WFA application distributed with an HA database back end, somehow.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;what's been most effective?&amp;nbsp; any ideas or pitfalls?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:20:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/high-availability-for-WFA/m-p/9774#M2004</guid>
      <dc:creator>pwl</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:20:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: high availability for WFA</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/high-availability-for-WFA/m-p/9779#M2005</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Peter,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I haven't seen any WFA deployment yet that wasn't a virtual machine. This gives us automatic HA through VMware HA. I believe that's good enough and don't see a lot of benefit in HA capabilities of WFA itself. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Same for OnCommand, most deployments these days are not on physical servers and most customers rely on VMWare HA. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At least that's my experience, would be interested in hearing what others see in the field.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hendrik&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:30:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/high-availability-for-WFA/m-p/9779#M2005</guid>
      <dc:creator>hland</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-15T10:30:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

