Hello, It's too early to say... I am just trying both. It also depends on the particular setup, database HW, queries to DB and many other aspects. What I can see so far is that the writing to detail file tends to be more resilient to peaks in accounting traffic. I will come back with some results Ales On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:35:40 +0200, Marcin wrote:
So, which is better solution for performance: keep accounting data in details file, then read it and write to db with buffered-sql or write accounting to database directly? In configuration file buffered-sql we can read: #v+ The server can read accounting packets from the detail file much more quickly than those packets an be written to a database. If the database is overloaded, then bad things can happen.
#v-
2015-04-21 0:14 GMT+02:00 Arran Cudbard-Bell :
On 20 Apr 2015, at 21:16, Rygl Aleš wrote: Hello Alan, I am able to run the following setup recommeded by you, thanks. accounting { ... redundant { sql detail } ... } It looks good so far (~1000 req/s). The failover to the detail file is very
fast (tested with LOCK - sleep - UNLOCK table). Really cool. I am in test environment and I am trying to tune the pool of sql connections in order to avoid failover now. It would be IMHO useful if the server logs a
:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">to a file or another instance in the redundant section. W
/blockquote>possible a.cudbardb@freeradius.org> FreeRADIUS development team FD31 3077 42EC
us.org/list/users.html">http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.ht
Links: ------ [1] mailto:ales@rygl.net [2] mailto:a.cudbardb@freeradius.org