I'm alright with that for the time being :-) I was also interested in how I would get my two PF instances to share the same data, so if there's a failover the data would transfer over? I may be going in circles here, and the documentation originally provided contains the answers. I looked through it best I could, but have a hard time fully understanding it..
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 10:09 AM Ludovic Zammit <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > Most of the time switches support that feature where when the first server > is not responsive it will forward the radius request to the second one. > > It will fail after fews radius failure. Most of the time it can be tuned > on the switch radius settings. > > It’s not a true HA in a way that you would few minutes of down time if one > side fail. > > Thanks, > > > Ludovic [email protected] :: +1.514.447.4918 (x145) :: www.inverse.ca > Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (http://www.sogo.nu) and PacketFence > (http://packetfence.org) > > > > > > On Apr 24, 2019, at 9:04 AM, Stuart Gendron <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thank you. > > Is there a way to setup HA on the switch side (have two RADIUS servers, > try the next one if one fails) and then have a remote database that two > PacketFence instances can look at? Basically have two PF servers that are > in sync? > > I'm looking through the guide and it's going over my head a bit.. > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 4:02 PM Ludovic Zammit <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Stuart, >> >> The answer is pretty simple. >> >> You are looking at two different version of PacketFence that uses two >> different datable technology. >> >> PF 6.5.1 relied on mysql version with corosync + pacemaker + drbd and PF >> 8.X relies on MariaDB Galera cluster for HA. >> >> With PF 8 version you need 2 server + 1 for the qorum. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Ludovic [email protected] :: +1.514.447.4918 (x145) :: >> www.inverse.ca >> Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (http://www.sogo.nu) and PacketFence >> (http://packetfence.org) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 23, 2019, at 3:50 PM, Stuart Gendron via PacketFence-users < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hey there, >> >> Sorry for the easy question, however I'm getting confused when looking >> around on how to configure PacketFence for High Availability. >> >> The more recent instructions: >> >> https://packetfence.org/doc/PacketFence_Clustering_Guide.html >> >> state that you need a minimum of 3 PF instances. >> >> Whereas the older instructions >> >> >> https://packages.inverse.ca/PacketFence/doc/PacketFence_Clustering_Guide-6.5.1.pdf >> >> state you only need 2 PF instances. >> >> 2 instances would be ideal, as 3 is definitely overkill for our >> environment. >> >> Was wondering if I'd run into serious issues with following instructions >> for 6.5.1, or if there's more up to date instructions that only require 2 >> instances. >> >> Thanks again for everyone's help. Have saved me a great deal of trouble. >> >> -- >> >> *Stuart Gendron* >> IT Support Specialist >> >> *You.i Labs* >> 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, ON, K2K 3C8 >> <https://maps.google.com/?q=307+Legget+Drive,+Kanata,+ON,%C2%A0K2K+3C8&entry=gmail&source=g> >> t (613) 228-9107 x258 | c (613) 697-6853 >> _______________________________________________ >> PacketFence-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users >> >> >> > > -- > > *Stuart Gendron* > IT Support Specialist > > *You.i Labs* > 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, ON, K2K 3C8 > <https://maps.google.com/?q=307+Legget+Drive,+Kanata,+ON,%C2%A0K2K+3C8&entry=gmail&source=g> > t (613) 228-9107 x258 | c (613) 697-6853 > > > -- *Stuart Gendron* IT Support Specialist *You.i Labs* 307 Legget Drive, Kanata, ON, K2K 3C8 <https://maps.google.com/?q=307+Legget+Drive,+Kanata,+ON,%C2%A0K2K+3C8&entry=gmail&source=g> t (613) 228-9107 x258 | c (613) 697-6853
_______________________________________________ PacketFence-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/packetfence-users
