Connector-level Failover - OPC UA 2.x

What is the future strategy for OPC UA Collectors? If there is no support for failover, we need to inform this to our clients, who are relying this feature to be released in future release of OPC UA Collector.

Declined - At the time we will not be implementing this idea since it does not align with our current data collection strategy. This feature is now available for the OPC UA Adapter.

Seems like a very reasonable feature. Any history on why this feature was removed?

https://pisystem.feedback.aveva.com/ideas/PIADAPTERS-I-69
^ Click this link to upvote adding a GUI to the PI Adapter for OPC UA so that it can end up being more user friendly.

OPC UA 2.x needs Connector Level Failover. I'm shocked that it was removed from 1.3.1.

It is very important to have OPC UA Connector Failover in regulated environment like the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Because of (monthly) Windows updates we need to decrease the amount of data lacks. I think a connector-level failover will help us on this.

Hello, keen to see a timeline for when this will be available. If we want to patch a server that requires a restart, this guarantees data loss by using this connector, if we have a failover of a server, we will lose a significant amount of data.

We are stuck with OPC DA and would like like to move to OPC UA to allow better network segregation.

Any news on this? Or will Connectors simply remain unuseable and one has to wait for the PI Adapters as follow up? And are the Adaptars capable enough to be used as successor of PI Interfaces?

The main Idea is if the "Connector Model" will be replace the "Interface Model", this components must have at least, the same functionalities and improve performance on its purpose. So, a upgrade version of a connector should improve the last version and not minimize it.

Please, see a image with our needs. 2 PI Gateways connect a Redundant OPC UA Service for a Full Failover Scheme

In this Case, both redundant OPC UA Service work in a mode (Active-Active), but this modality could change ... Thanks anyway...

FYI - OPC UA 2.x connector does support OPC UA Server redundancy. It does not support client-side (connector) redundancy, which is what this 'Idea' is about.

From Case:00812539, I need a Failover at the Connector Level just the same as we have for the OPC-DA Interface. I learned that none of the "new" Connectors are able to have a redundancy on the Connector Level, so every Connector of a current Version is not useable for a Productive Environment in the chemical Production Environment.

Hi OSIsoft, as others have pointed out, I'm baffled by the apparent backwards step in v2.x (i.e. no HA / failover support at the interface-level). However I notice that OPC UA has native support for something called "Client Failover" (see the 'OPC UA Online Reference' here: https://reference.opcfoundation.org/v104/Core/docs/Part4/6.6.1/ ) I'm wondering if your intent is to support native OPC "Client Failover" under the new v2.x connector fork? For example: • You have two diverse PI OPC UA connectors (OPC UA 'clients') – both Active/Active – but one is operating in ‘backup’ mode • The OPC UA ‘server’ maintains information on it’s active client sessions • The ‘backup’ UA client monitors the client-session information on the UA server – and detects when the ‘active’ UA client has “failed” • The ‘backup’ UA client then instructs the UA server to redirect all future traffic to itself Is that on the cards for support in a future version of v2.x?

Hi OSIsoft, Echoing what others have shared already, I think we can all agree with these two points: 1) Failover is a key pillar for the "critical infrastructure" very frequently present in all OSIsoft pitches; and 2) OPC UA is probably the most common standard in industrial communication. Seeing that the OPC UA connector dropped the connector level failover feature in the new version (plus not having a clear roadmap for this) conveys a not so reassuring message to your customers who decided/take into consideration to engage a long strategic journey with you. I hope to see this implemented very soon, thanks!

The legacy SCADA systems are getting replaced by UA servers out-of-the-box. So OPC UA Connector is the preferred route.

This is a dealbreaker for us. We won't be using the connector because it's lacking client redundancy. Right now it seems to be the better solution for us to have an OPC UA to OPC DA bridge and the legacy OPC DA interface, adding another hop but redundancy makes up for that.

Redundancy should be available for our mission critical data. End users are expecting high availability.

We invested in HA solution at server side, as data capture process needs to be secured end to end OPC UA failover is required.