# Connect Designer to Redundant Backup Gateway

**URL:** <https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/connect-designer-to-redundant-backup-gateway/116977>\
**Category:** Ignition\
**Created:** [September 3, 2026, 7:24am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/connect-designer-to-redundant-backup-gateway/116977 "2026-09-03T07:24:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bassam.albaydani](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/53a042/32.png) [@bassam.albaydani](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/bassam.albaydani)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2026, 7:24am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/connect-designer-to-redundant-backup-gateway/116977/1 "2026-09-03T07:24:21Z")

</div>

I was trying to connect the designer launcher to the **backup gateway** when it assumes control, then found out that Ignition does not support this. Apparently, Ignition's redundancy architecture is designed in such a way that the designer is only allowed when the **master gateway** is up, and it seems that the reason for this is making the **master gateway** handle all configuration and project changes.

I am proposing to re-evaluate this architecture to explore the possibility of making changes on the **backup gateway** and have the ability to merge and accept changes from either **master or backup gateway.**

The objective of this is having the flexibility of accommodating user's requested changes on the projects even when master is not available.

Looking forward to hearing your feedback about this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Alejandro\_Alaco](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/alejandro_alaco/32/59849_2.png) [@Alejandro\_Alaco](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/Alejandro_Alaco)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2026, 10:19am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/connect-designer-to-redundant-backup-gateway/116977/2 "2026-09-03T10:19:08Z")

</div>

I guess allowing changes from multiple places—including the backup gateway—could make things harder to control and maintain.

It would probably be safer to have one main place where all configuration changes are made. The backup gateway should stay synchronized and ready to take over if needed, rather than being another place where changes can be made.

If several people or gateways can modify the same configuration, it can quickly become difficult to know who changed what, prevent conflicts, and keep everything consistent. Having a clear owner and a controlled process would help avoid these issues.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JordanCClark](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/jordancclark/32/83362_2.png) [@JordanCClark](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/JordanCClark)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2026, 11:44am UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/connect-designer-to-redundant-backup-gateway/116977/3 "2026-09-03T11:44:50Z")

</div>

I would think that getting the master back up would be a priority.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pturmel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/inductiveautomation/user_avatar/forum.inductiveautomation.com/pturmel/32/3295_2.png) [@pturmel](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/u/pturmel)\
**Post date:** [September 3, 2026, 1:36pm UTC](https://forum.inductiveautomation.com/t/connect-designer-to-redundant-backup-gateway/116977/4 "2026-09-03T13:36:06Z")

</div>

One-way synchronization of configuration is technically much simpler to implement. Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen.

Also, if it every becomes possible, expect the 50% discount for backup server licenses to cease. That discount reflects the fact that a Backup is not usable as an independent gateway.