A question about load balancers and Terracotta clustering

[Wessel, Keith William]

That is, in fact, my plan B, Scott. I was hoping to not have to lose functionality with the upgrade, but at this point, I'm seriously considering that option and planning to give management the pros and cons later this week if I don't make any more progress. Your solution is nicely documented and easy enough to implement, and I'm in no way opposed to stateless clustering. Thanks for the suggestion. I'm already on that page, or at least giving it serious thought.

Keith


-----Original Message-----
From: users-bounces at shibboleth.net [mailto:users-bounces at shibboleth.net] On Behalf Of Cantor, Scott
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:26 PM
To: Shib Users
Subject: Re: A question about load balancers and Terracotta clustering

On 7/16/12 2:22 PM, "Wessel, Keith William" <kwessel at illinois.edu> wrote:
>
>No, good theory, though. Our RHEL6 VMs have selinux disabled by default.

Asking the obvious, but do you have a compelling need for the cluster, or are your authentication requirements vanilla enough that you could drop in what I use?

-- Scott

--
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net