MatthewEhle wrote:

> kjhurni;2206091 Wrote:
> > I've been informed that with the 3.2 codebase, that you can do
> > simple failover with the AGS and the docs are wrong.
> >
> > I didn't ask how to go about doing this, but that's the answer I
> > got.

> It makes sense. It's pretty consistent with the fact that the MAG is
> very much like the AGS, except that OS functions can be controlled
> from the admin console. I have noticed a number of other places
> where the documentation hasn't reflected some of the many differences
> in how the MAG works vs. the AGS, so that doesn't surprise me at all.
> My suggestion is that you should consider the AGS and MAG to be
> identical as far as documentation goes, unless you know otherwise.
> At least until the documentation has been refined some more.

I think there are some differences between the AGS and MAG. The MAG
seems to be more in line with the 3.1 appliance which would make me
recommend the MAG over the AGS.