Load balancing both the SP and IdP

[Brian Reindel]

Thanks everyone for the additional feedback. We have an active/passive
failover system already for high availability, and I'm not as
concerned about any performance gains from clustering since we have
lower volume traffic. Once (if) we end up supporting clustering it
would simply live in both the active and passive environments. Scott,
you mentioned the Hibernate option, but I thought that was only going
to be for v3, and would not be backward compatible. Is it a viable
option for v2.4.* as well?

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Paul Hethmon
<paul.hethmon at clareitysecurity.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/13 9:48 AM, "Cantor, Scott" <cantor.2 at osu.edu> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>This has worked pretty well for us, though at some point we'd still like
>>>to move to the clustering options you mentioned. While I wouldn't
>>>recommend this over proper clustering, it may be better than having just
>>>a single node.
>>
>>I should have included that in my "preferred" options, it works pretty
>>well and probably with a lot less hassle.
>
> If a single server can handle your entire load, its a very good option.
> When you need more than one server to handle the load, that's when you
> need at least 3 servers in the mix so that one can fail and your load is
> still handled.
>
> Paul
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net