Load balancing both the SP and IdP

[Paul Hethmon]

It's on the contributions page for 2.3+.

I'm running it on multiple systems using MySQL. It's also being testing
against Oracle.

Paul

On 10/23/13 11:22 AM, "Brian Reindel" <brian at reindel.com> wrote:

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