Resource Pool Controllers

[IanClowery]

Hi, I've a quick query around resource pools, and pool controllers, I'm not sure if I'm just missing something obvious. If we have a pool that has 2 machines in it, then one of them is designated as the pool controller, and the other as a pool member. If the member machine goes down, the pool stays available, and can continue to be used, but if the controller machine goes down, the whole pool becomes unavailable for work, even though there may be no issue with the member machine. Is this the expected operation of pools, or is my setup incorrect? It seems having a single point of failure for a whole pool is far from ideal, especially given that the controller machine most likely gets called first, as it is the first machine added to the pool?

[Denis__Dennehy]

Hello, I'm not sure where you have got the concept of pool controllers and members from??  When you create and add resources to a pool (In System->Resources->Pools) a resoure is either in a pool or not - there is no concept of 'controller' or 'member'.  The whole point of pools is that if one resource is not available the schedular or control room will check the next resource until it hopefully finds on resource that is availalbe.  There was a bug in resource pools that meant that only the first resource in a pool was showing the correct status in control room but my understanding is that has been fixed in recent versions of the product.

[IanClowery]

Thanks for the quick reply Denis, I'm on 4.2.37 if that makes a difference. Apologies if I didn't explain myself correctly, it seems like maybe I have a setup issue then? Here's how it's working for me: We have a pool called FIN-Pool. In the pool there are two resources that have been assigned (let's call them ROBOT1 and ROBOT2) If I look at the the status within the clients themselves, I can see that one of them has been designated ""controller of pool"" and the other ""member of pool"" (see image) If I close the resource that's defined as a member, then the pool stays up, and in the pool details, I can see that 1 resource is still available. (see image) But if I close the resource that's defined at the controller, the whole pool goes down, and the pool is offline, even though the member resource is still up and running. (see image) I'm not sure if I'm missing some vital piece of the puzzle, but I'd love to get confirmation either way! Cheers, Ian

[Denis__Dennehy]

Hi Ian, you are on a 3 year old version of the product - I'd be surprised if it did not drop out of our standard support at some point soon so it might be worth discussion the need for an upgrade with the RPA management in the organisation.  It is difficult for me to know what might be happening in such an old version of the product, maybe raise the issue with the support team and they might be able to track if it is something that is fixed in a newer version of the product.

[IanClowery]

Thanks Denis, tell me about it! I'd love to move us onto v6 but we're currently sitting on quite a large shared platform, so there's a lot of challenges for us to perform a version upgrade. It's in the pipeline though , and hopefully it'll solve the issues we're seeing.   Thanks again for the help!   Kind regards   Ian