NativeSPClustering- shared shibd

[Vedran Bartonicek]

I think that shibd would not be a SPOF  since two nodes running shibd would
be in active - passive configuration.
>From user's point of view failover is seamless (as much as I tested it).
That said, I am not that experienced in Shib world, so any feedback on SP
HA is greatly appreciated.

But after above discussion, I think I will drop this architecture with
shared shibd, and instead have SP in single node, and configure it in
active-passive mode.
What worries me is SSL termination (done at SP machine), as a possible
bottleneck if there is a lot of traffic for the Tomcat cluster behind SP.
But maybe I should start a new thread with SP HA title or something like
that.

-Vedran



On 14 September 2016 at 13:56, Peter Schober <peter.schober at univie.ac.at>
wrote:

> * Vedran Bartonicek <vbartoni at gmail.com> [2016-09-14 08:47]:
> > The reason I ended up in this setup is that I am building a HA setup for
> > SP, which would lay in front of webserver cluster.
>
> Are you certain that building a SPOF into the system (one shared shibd
> process) qualifies for your HA requirements?
> -peter
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list send an email to
> users-unsubscribe at shibboleth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shibboleth.net/pipermail/users/attachments/20160915/77b9ffce/attachment.html>