In this post continues the description of the possible scenarios started in the Standalone post.
The scenario debate an High Availability requirement where Sinapse can be used.
The conditions and entities shown in the figure below are the same of Standalone post. The actual difference is in the Sinapse server who is in charge to manage the devices. In this case a customer asked for a system with a fallback server ready to run if the first one goes in a faulty condition.
The condition shown in the figure can be common in system where a fault of a server may have high costs.
The scenario has two (or more) Sinapse servers running, but only one is declared as Master. The other(s) are declared Slave.
In this condition the Master server is the one in charge to do everything, but constantly synchronizes the slave(s) with all information it has.
If the Master server goes in a faulty condition (HW failure, OS failure, etc.) one slave becomes the Master, attaches to field devices and continues the job from the last synchronization point received from the defunct Master.
In future articles other scenarios will be described.