"Robles Rodriguez,Alejandro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I'm wondering if this is in a clustered configuration i.e. > multiple nodes handling the load and cooperating (sharing data such > as IP pools).
Sharing data is harder. You're better off splitting the IP pools by server. The clients won't notice, or care. See: http://www.freeradius.org/testimonials.html > I'd really like o create some sort of standard architecture for > freeradius that can scale and is reliable and have it in a "real" > environment for a while for others to have confidence when making > this same decision that I'm about to make. Sounds good to me. Diagrams on the Wiki would be good. > I have compared my version with that of the CVS root and apart > form some small differences that I'll investigate further I noticed > that it has the same bug that I found. The problem is that I don't > know how to report it. bugs.freeradius.org. After looking at your proposed patch, I'm not sure it's much better. There are a number of cases where the function returns without calling "finish select", which can/will leak memory. > Also I think it'd be a good idea to back-port it to 1.1.x. Who > decides this and how do I express my interest? Do the work and send in the patch. If nothing else, it can go in as an "experimental" module, which means you can enable it in your local configuration. Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
