On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Shweta Khadse <shwetgk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fajar
>
> Appreciate the time you are taking to help out!
>
> Its like this. We have two parts right
>
> Part 1 -
>
> Redundant module having sql1 and sql2
> This is a critical module ,so if sql1 fails it tries sql2. So far so good!
>
> Part 2 -
>
> sql_update_xxxx , sql_update_yyyy
>
> The above two update a different schema with some additional information.
> This action is not very critical and does NOT have a redundant set up. What
> we want is that the outcome of part2 should not affect the overall
> accounting response.
>
> So if Part 2 fails , the result of Part 1 should override it (whatever the
> result of Part 1 maybe).

There's no such thing as "override" in accounting section. At least
not that I know of :)

This section might best suit your needs:

accounting {
 redundant-load-balance {
   sql1
   sql2
 }
 redundant {
   sql_update_xxxx
   ok
 }
 redundant {
   sql_update_yyyy
   ok
 }
}

that section translates to:
- for every accounting request, it will choose randomly between sql1
and sql2. If both works, they will have equal load. If only one of
them works, accounting can still continue. If both fail, accounting
will fail
- for every accounting request, it will TRY to run sql_update_xxxx and
sql_update_yyyy. Even when both of them fail, accounting will still
work as long as either sql1 or sql2 works.

--
Fajar
-
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html