Freeradius 3.0.7 and multiple buffered-sql servers - detail file issues

[Aleš Rygl]

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 at freeradius.org> FreeRADIUS development
team FD31 3077 42EC 
>> 
>>>
us.org/list/users.html">http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.ht

 


Links:
------
[1] mailto:ales at rygl.net
[2]
mailto:a.cudbardb at freeradius.org