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

Marcin marcin at
Tue Apr 21 16:09:04 CEST 2015

2015-04-21 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alan DeKok <aland at>:

> On Apr 21, 2015, at 2:35 AM, Marcin <marcin at> 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?
>   Typically writing to a database directly is lower latency than writing
> to the detail file and then to the DB.

Yes, but i don't care about latency. I can have even one minute late write
to DB. What is more important to me it's performance and speed of
freeradius answers.

>   In v3, the pool configuration helps a lot.  Set a "max" number of
> connections the DB can handle, and fail-over to the detail file.  In normal
> operation, everything goes directly to the DB.  If you get a huge spike of
> traffic, the detail file fills up.  And then drains slowly when the spike
> goes away.

You say about "fail-over", do you have redundant on your thought?

redundant {

and then start buffered-sql. Is that right?

> > 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.
>   Yes, which means you can read 100K packets/s from the detail file, and
> only write 2K packets/s to the DB.  This shouldn't be surprising.
>   Alan DeKok.
> -
> List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See

Marcin / nicraM

More information about the Freeradius-Users mailing list