Load balancing both the SP and IdP

[Martin Lunze]

We are using Shibboleth IdP in the same way.
An active and an passive one. Our loadbalancer checks the reachability
of the "status"-page and if it isn't present it switches to the passive
one.
But we have a new check-script which does a complete login-process.
Later we want to change the status-page-check against the login-check.

Additionally we realized a master-master-replication of the
mysql-database between the two IdP's to manage that all generated id's
for a user are the same on both machines.

The last point on our todo-list is to implement a solution for the
session-problem.
Is there a possibility to share the sessions between IdP's?
Maybe with memcached?

I have no experience with this.

With nice regards

On Mi, 2013-10-23 at 15:28 +0000, Paul Hethmon wrote:
> 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
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net

-- 
MfG
Martin Lunze

Technische Universität Dresden
Zentrum für Informationsdienste und Hochleistungsrechnen
Trefftz-Bau, HRSK 151
Zellescher Weg 12-14
01062 Dresden

+49 351 463-35881
martin.lunze at tu-dresden.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 6160 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20131024/c2c14c6f/attachment.bin