On 06/02/2015 10:29 AM, Innes, Duncan wrote:
Just a bit of a head's up and a refresh of this with perhaps some new

Good to hear :-) We recently also started investigating the Audit
capabilities for (notice I write "for" and not "in") IPA. You can
check my initial nudge to the freeipa-users list, which was
unfortunately with no reply:


First up, just got round to reading this Martin.  Not sure how I missed
when it first came out as it's a strong area of interest for me.

We have more now! I created


where you can read more about this POC project and even see demo showing what the current POC ELK server can do (with link to Docker server container and sources of course).

The main part of what this message is about is a big change I made to
logging recently.  I added in 4 of our main production IPA servers
are 8 in total, but 4 sit beyond firewalls that take more scrutiny for
changes than I wanted for now).  The 4 I've added, though, serve more
clients I figure.  The amount of log traffic to the pair of Logstash
servers has now jumped from around 50k records/hour to around 250k.

Doubtless this still doesn't push any of the parts to their limits, but
there has been a barely noticeably increase in CPU usage on the 2
servers.  We've gone from around 2% CPU usage to 4%.

Since the CPU usage on our 'loudest' IPA server rarely peaks above 10%,
this doesn't present nearly as much load as I had anticipated.  I have
Logstash parsers on my DEV IPA boxes, but will now investigate running
them on my Prod servers too.


What I'm getting at is that perhaps clients sending logs back to the IPA
servers for parsing, then being sent on to a central DB for storage,
going to break the bank performance-wise.

All of the systems in question here are 2vCPU with 4Gb vRAM running on
hosts, so nothing special in the performance arena.

It strikes me as a reasonably elegant solution to pair the
and log parsing services on the same set of servers.  This would allow
client to use the same servers/failover etc for SSSD as for rsyslog.

There may, of course, be other considerations, but I'm suggesting that
system load isn't necessarily one of them.  Much as projects such as
can run with everything on the same server, or split out Postgres and
like onto separate servers when there are performance considerations.

Thoughts?  I'm not saying they should always be paired, but that if a
designs a system with enough horse power, this piggy-backing could work

Ah, interesting idea and measurement. We have not thought about this kind of architecture yet. What we did in our POC is to configure FreeIPA clients and servers to send the logs directly to the logging server which was on completely different machine (container) than rest of the infrastructure.

It may be an alternative scheme, to have FreeIPA server containing the log processing and then forwarding further to other REK/ELK server and clients simply forwarding the logs to the same server as where they are authenticating. If all the log configuration is baked in ipa-{server,replica,client}-install, it would be extremely easy to integrate.

I am not sure if the authentication+logging binding would be that easy, nor that it belong together that much. SSSD would need to dynamically export the address of the FreeIPA server it communicates with, maybe similarly as it does with Kerberos (http://linux.die.net/man/8/sssd_krb5_locator_plugin) - but that does not seem as a good fit either.

In any case, CCing Jakub for reference.


Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to