On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:01:07 +0200 "Andrea Coppini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > DB backends are good, and save alot of admin, but don't expect them to > be > > faster than a memory scan :-) > > > I haven't done any tests, but I would presume an SQL backend would be > more 'robust' than freeradius. > > The way I see it, having 1 request a minute is definitely faster with a > users file in memory, but when the load hits and you have 10,000 hits > per minute, freeradius would grind to a halt having to look up the > credentials and handling all NAS comms simultaneously, while freeradius > + sql would just continue doing their respective jobs as normal. But as the same CPU would be working on the DB lookups AND the freeRADIUS code as well, it would slow down by a much larger factor. You would now have 2 processes sharing the memory and CPU resources and bus of the system etc.. Fact is Disk access is horribly slow compared to memory. Look at the spec of a fairly old (now) PC.. 100MHz FSB.. so thats around 100,000,000*4 bytes per SECOND which is a tiny bit faster than a HDD don't you think. Just look at the clock speed of your PC.. even if the data wasn't indexed in memory and was searched in a linear manner it would still be extremely quick in comparison to a db. Graeme -- ----- Graeme Hinchliffe (BSc) Core Team Member Zen Internet (http://www.zen.co.uk) ICQ 3842605 (link) Direct: 01706 900 212 Sales : 0870 6000 971 Fax : 0870 6000 972 - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
