indeed Peter but for the small scale users Andy was talking about it's
the beez neez. Clustering would have stopped them from adopting long
ago never mind databases...
Alistair
--
mov eax,1
mov ebx,0
int 80h
On 11 Mar 2010, at 14:36, Peter Schober wrote:
> * Alistair Young <[log in to unmask]> [2010-03-11 14:48]:
>> There are technologies that can make the persistent store
>> transparent,
>> such as an embedded database like Derby which can run inside the IdP
>> with no extra administration other than a one time config file and
>> should ideally be mostly invisible to the sysadmins. As it runs
>> inside
>> the IdP there's no network connectivity to worry about and it gets
>> backed up with the IdP.
>
> That's fine until you need to cluster the IdP for availablility
> reasons, e.g. if you're using SAML also for campus WebSSO, not just
> for federated access to publisher's resources.
> Unless, of course, such an embeddeed database can reliably be used
> over a network filesystem (which I doubt) aand shared between the
> IdPs.
> And for the whole excercise of clustering the IdP to make any sense,
> then your database system where you store those presistentId (whataver
> it may be) needs to be made highly available as well. Which is where
> complexity and/or costs really come in.
> -peter
|