Bob, Maybe I confused the issue some.
I think John had my issue addressed the most correctly. >Not an AMGH expert by any stretch, but don't you really want to >separate your machine "groups" into separate FOGs and then decide >which FOG to send tokens to. So for e.g. you might have an >engineering FOG, a marketing FOG, etc. Today I have 6 machines divided into pairs. 1 pair for regular users, 1 pair for "special users, and 1 pair for qa users. They are all sparc solaris 9. The qa folks run their own custom daemons so I need qa users to go to only those hosts. Regulars users cannot be allowed to access "special hosts" for licensing reasons. Special users need to end up on special hosts based on a particular application that pair runs. Today we shuttle users around via a custom Xsetup script that runs a utswitch. In the future I will likely have the same 6 servers running Solaris 10. I might also be adding two Centos Linux servers. The reason to switch is the same. It's totally based on what applications that account needs to access. If I had my way they would all be in 1 FOG with a seperate master for easy token maintenance. This is how I would like user switching to work. 1. User inserts token 2. Script reads token and looks up username for that token (from the sunray ldap database using utuser) 3. Script looks up machines from nis map 4. Session either connects because it is the correct server or switches them to the correct server. It seems like amgh should be able to help us out in this case. I am only worried about load balancing within each given pair of machines Did that help my case or make it worse :) >Then you can't use AMGH. AMGH works between FOGs only. FOGs should >contain servers that appear identical to users, so they don't care which >server they get load-balanced to. AMGH comes into play when you have >differences in user environments, and so you create FOGs for those >different environments, and AMGH can direct users to their appropriate FOG. > >It's a bad idea to mix servers with different environments into a single >FOG. Conceptually that's at odds with the notion of load balancing users >automatically between servers. Thanks for all the help so far. I sure do appreciate it. I hope your job is all safe and sound still with the merger. Scott _______________________________________________ SunRay-Users mailing list [email protected] http://www.filibeto.org/mailman/listinfo/sunray-users
