hi, i've a proxy with freeradius 1.1.6 in load balacing with two back-end radius 1.1.6 my proxy is configured like this realm APPLI1 { type = radius authhost = xx.xx.xx.xx:1820 accthost = xx.xx.xx.xx:1821 ldflag = round_robin secret = mysecret } # Server Canna PROD Accellio GPRS de Test avec Realm realm APPLI1 { type = radius authhost = yy.yy.yy.yy:1820 accthost = yy.yy.yy.yy:1821 ldflag = round_robin secret = mysecret } I see the Authentication request and response then Accounting start an some hours later accounting stop on the proxy the problem is that I see the Authentication request and response then Accounting start on the fisrt back-end server and the accounting stop on the second backend server. is this a bug or a problem of configuration ? thanks in advance. Regards JPR
EXT / GFI REBOLJ Jean-Pierre wrote:
hi, i've a proxy with freeradius 1.1.6 in load balacing with two back-end radius 1.1.6 ... the problem is that I see the Authentication request and response then Accounting start on the fisrt back-end server and the accounting stop on the second backend server. is this a bug or a problem of configuration ?
It's the way load balancing works. It's documented as working this way. Requests get randomly load balanced between different home servers. FreeRADIUS does *not* track individual user sessions for load balancing. That's a *lot* of work. In 2.0, you can do "client-balance", which does load-balancing by hashing the client IP address. So all requests from one client will go to one server. But it's only useful if you have a large number of clients. Alan DeKok.
On 6/29/07, Alan DeKok <aland@deployingradius.com> wrote:
Accounting start on the fisrt back-end server and the accounting stop on the second backend server. is this a bug or a problem of configuration ?
It's the way load balancing works. It's documented as working this way. Requests get randomly load balanced between different home servers.
in my setup, log dirs live in a shared filesystem, as for accounting.. the SQL server is one.
Alan wrote:
NFS mounted? Don't. If NFS goes away, any application using those directories will lock, and be unkillable.
it's part of a red hat cluster, and it's managed by that software suite. If a machine dies a transparent switch occurs. If it fails I'll get angry with red hat --so far it didn't happen (and I didn't bother finding out if it's nfs-based or something else). This feature is not critical, ok. I can live without it. It just works, and simplifies analisys a lot. I've got other reasons to be angry with red had, but this is not the case. Personally I like sshfs much more than nfs, but it's prone to similar problems as those above. So I won't use it. bye, inverse
participants (3)
-
Alan DeKok -
EXT / GFI REBOLJ Jean-Pierre -
inverse