Fajar Appreciate the time you are taking to help out!
Its like this. We have two parts right Part 1 - Redundant module having sql1 and sql2 This is a critical module ,so if sql1 fails it tries sql2. So far so good! Part 2 - sql_update_xxxx , sql_update_yyyy The above two update a different schema with some additional information. This action is not very critical and does NOT have a redundant set up. What we want is that the outcome of part2 should not affect the overall accounting response. So if Part 2 fails , the result of Part 1 should override it (whatever the result of Part 1 maybe). On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha <l...@fajar.net> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Shweta Khadse <shwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Redundant{ > > > > Sql1{ > > > > ok=2 > > > > } > > > > Sql2 > > > > { > > > > Ok= return > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > Sql_update_xxxx > > { > > > > FAIL=1 > > > > } > > > > > > Sql_update_yyyy > > { > > > > FAIL=1 > > > > } > > > > } > > Looks like you misunderstood what I meant. DId you read > http://wiki.freeradius.org/Fail-over ? Looks like you're confusing > "group" and "redundant". > > Let me try this another way. > > What are you trying to do? Is it: > (1) run ALL sql1, sql2, Sql_update_xxxx, and Sql_update_yyyy, and if > any of them fail, the entire accounting block fail. OR > (2) run EITHER ONE (and ONLY one) of sql1, sql2, Sql_update_xxxx, and > Sql_update_yyyy, in that order. OR > (3) TRY to run ALL of sql1, sql2, Sql_update_xxxx, and > Sql_update_yyyy, but if any of them fail return OK for that particular > module. > (4) simply return Accounting-Response to the NAS no matter what > > If it's (1), then the block should be > > accounting { > sql1 > sql2 > sql_update_xxx > sql_update_yyy > } > > if it's (2), then the block should be > > accounting { > redundant { > sql1 > sql2 > sql_update_xxx > sql_update_yyy > ok > } > } > > if it's (3), then the block should be > > accounting { > redundant { > sql1 > ok > } > redundant { > sql2 > ok > } > redundant { > sql_update_xxx > ok > } > redundant { > sql_update_yyy > ok > } > } > > If it's (4), then a simple > > accounting { > ok > } > > is enough. Note that this block: > > accounting { > redundant { > ok > sql1 > sql2 > sql_update_xxx > sql_update_yyy > } > } > > will also do the same thing as the one before (4), but anything under > "ok" is useless as it's never used. > > -- > Fajar > > - > List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See > http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html >
- List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html