Thanks Stephan! From: Stephan Arts [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 4:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [cas-user] CAS: Active/Passive HA for 4.0
Hi, You are reading the docs correctly. However... 'replicating ticket information' is less scary then it sounds. - Having an active cluster does give you an advantage over a passive cluster. - You know that both nodes operate and are functional. - And if one fails, you're warned you are running with one leg. One thing you don't want, is to fail over to a machine that turns out to be faulty. Regards, Stephan On 06/17/14 11:07 PM, Zac Harvey <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I'm reading the 4.0 HA guide (http://jasig.github.io/cas/4.0.0/planning/High-Availability-Guide.html) and have 1 quick question: If I want Active/Passive mode, can I just stick with DefaultTicketRegistry, and *not* worry about distributed/shared ticket storage? It sounds like, for Active/Passive mode, the onus is on the load-balancer to automatically switch over to the Passive Node, and that, obviously then, any tickets/sessions stored on the previous Active Node would be lost. Is this correct, or am I mis-reading the docs? Thanks in advance! -- You are currently subscribed to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> as: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-user -- You are currently subscribed to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> as: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-user -- You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/cas-user
