memcached failover

[Cantor, Scott]

On 8/16/16, 2:40 PM, "users on behalf of Jonathan Johnson" <users-bounces at shibboleth.net on behalf of jsjohnson at unicon.net> wrote:
> 2. Using server side storage is still useful for some scenarios (realtime auditing,
> session revocation, etc), but more than that, there are classes of browsers that don’t
> work with client side storage (no html5 storage and cookie size limits, think embedded).

I'm aware of no routine cookie limits worse than Safari's actually, but anything's possible. Lack of local storage is no problem except for logout, which is irrelevant on most embedded clients.

Session revocation can work without server side storage (we don't support it in either case, but we would implement it without regard for storage model if/when we do).

> 3. There are a few opportunities for enhancement, particularly in indexing in some use
> cases of the storage API.

Any specifics you know about would be useful in evaluation.

Thx,
-- Scott