On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Marvin Addison <marvin.addi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Registries generally don't need the durability that comes with RDBMS, >> and unless you are already outfitted with clustered RDBMS tech and the >> resources to management it, the complexity is likely not worth the >> trouble. > > I've really warmed up to that view. The use of "Remember Me" might be > a counter argument, but as I said we don't use it and don't plan to in > the foreseeable future.
Yeah, I see that. I guess I'd have to find a solution to that problem, but like you I haven't run into a Remember Me deployment. > >> given the proliferation of hardware virtualization and the >> redundancy and vertical scaling they often provide, my default >> recommendation is a single node CAS deployment with in-memory Ticket >> Registry and active/passive configuration for disaster recovery. > > The point about virtualization pretty much invalidates the argument > about active-active setups making more efficient use of resources. > (The consideration of the cost of system administration/patching on > hosts that are unused 99.9% of the time may yet be fair.) > >> For situations that insist on a multi-node CAS deployment, my default >> would be to go with a distributed in-memory Ticket Registry like >> Ehcahce. > > The use of Terracotta underneath a distributed Ehcache instance is the > showstopper for me. It smelled of magic and mystery in my brief > experience with it, which are smells I associate with headaches in > production. I'm totally with you re Terracotta. Thankfully, it is not necessary: http://ehcache.org/documentation/user-guide/rmi-replicated-caching Bill -- You are currently subscribed to cas-dev@lists.jasig.org as: arch...@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-dev
