buffered-sql doesn't make sense to me

[Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu]

On Mon, 2009-05-04 at 21:29 +0100, Ivan Kalik wrote:

> No. Your understanding of how it works is incomplete.



Ok, fair enough.  But,...


> > The example "buffered-sql" file says to use one virtual server to log to
> > the detail file,
> 
> Yes. That would be default virtual server (by default).



...I was actually considering that perhaps the explanation meant the
"default" config was the virtual server writing to the detail file.  I
suppose I should have gone with my initial instincts on that one instead
of thinking "that can't possibly be right".


> Make sure that the detail file default virtual server writes to is the
> same that buffered-sql will read from (it isn't same by default).
> Uncomment sql in accunting section of buffered-sql.



Thanks for explaining/confirming that for me.  I made the necessary
changes in the detail module, and now accounting records are being
buffered. Yeah!

Hopefully I'll still have a working config when I eventually test with
the real NAS hardware instead of with just the radclient app.


> > Also, decoupled-accounting appears to me to be very similar to
> > buffered-sql.  If it's not, how is it different?
> 
> Default virtual server doesn't write to detail file but special virtual
> server (write_detail.example.com) does that. Accounting is totally
> separated from authentication.



So, once buffered-sql is configured correctly, it's the same thing as
decoupled-accounting.  Is that right?  What I'm trying to say is that
although these are two different terms, the end result is exactly the
same?

Regards,

Ranbir

-- 
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu
Linux 2.6.27.21-170.2.56.fc10.x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux 
16:52:53 up 20 days, 16:49, 4 users, load average: 1.24, 1.22, 1.18 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freeradius.org/pipermail/freeradius-users/attachments/20090504/69f0d027/attachment.html>