Unix domain socket support for authentication and accounting?

[Alan Buxey]

For packets less than 1024bytes theres very little difference. The 'talking
to radius' part is usually not a latency bottleneck,  its the SQL , the
LDAP etc.

alan

On Mon, 2 May 2022, 15:09 William Tang, <galaxyking0419 at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I dont' believe so.  And my numbers are as good as yours.
> > There is no reason to believe that's true.
> Unix domain sockets can achieve 66% latency reduction and 7x throughput,
> https://stackoverflow.com/a/29436429.
>
> >  I agree with Bjorn here.  There's no value to this, and many negatives.
> > Are there any RFC documenting RADIUS over unix domain sockets?  Are
> > there any clients supporting this?  Does your strongswan server support
> > it?
> Whether freeradius should implement this is out of the scope of this
> discussion.  I'm just checking if it supports it.
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 4:30 PM Alan DeKok <aland at deployingradius.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 2022, at 3:57 AM, William Tang <galaxyking0419 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I can’t realize a use-case for that… but, if you don’t mind please
> share
> > > with us what you have in mind…
> > > I have a server running both strongswan VPN server and freeradius for
> > > authentication and accounting.  Unix domain sockets would be more
> > efficient
> > > for communication between processes on the same machine.
> >
> >   There is no reason to believe that's true.
> >
> >   I agree with Bjorn here.  There's no value to this, and many negatives.
> >
> >   Alan DeKok.
> >
> > -
> > List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See
> > http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
> >
> -
> List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See
> http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
>