simultaneous checking

[Phil Mayers]

Ivan Kalik wrote:
> 
> Nothing in freeradius. But on the database side? Radacct is a big chunk as
> it is. Most people keep at least 3 months worth of data and than can be
> quite a few GB. There is significant impact on database performance at the
> time of daily backup. Proposed changes would increase radacct size by
> 10-20%. That's a few more minutes of poorly responsive database.

This may be true for other DBs, for it's not for postgres:

http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Disadvantages-to-using-"text"-p17109220.html

I'm only suggesting changing the postgres schema. I realise the OP may 
not have been using postgres - this is a bit of a digression on my part.

Obviously if you're actually *putting* more data in the fields the table 
would get bigger, but the alternative is either a failed or truncated 
insert. The former is a pretty big deal, and the latter is at best very 
confusing.

> Increasing field sizes to 250 characters when huge majority of people
> would do fine with only one tenth of that field is not a very good design
> solution. Perhaps adding a second schema where these fields are maxed up
> (large_fields_schema.sql)?
> 
> PS. I must appologize, it was not my intention to imply that if your

;o) No probs