Centralized Authentication Proposal

From CDOT Wiki
Revision as of 11:19, 24 April 2012 by Jacwang (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

While implementing the BCFG2 configuration management system on the build farm, the prospect of having a passwd, shadow and group file controlled by the utility was brought up several times. While this is one method of managing a consistent set of users and groups across the build farm, I feel that there is other software available that would be better suited for this task.


Arguments For

  • More easily managed users
  • consistent home directories over NFS
    • SSH keys always there
    • Test builds stored on network drive/doesn't take up space on builders
  • More modern approach to user management
  • Less inconsistencies throughout builders
  • Ability to document centralized logon performance in ARM space
    • valuable research for enterprise hardware

Arguments Against

  • Additonal services running on Hongkong/Ireland
  • Increased network traffic
  • additonal point of failure
    • Can have backup/slave servers


Means and methods

NIS/NIS+

  • Pros
    • Quick and easy
  • Cons
    • Not the most scalable system
      • Mitigated by the fact that our farm is less than 100 machines

OpenLDAP/389 Directory

  • Pros
    • LDAP is an industry standard
    • Extensible
    • Fine Grained
    • Lots of nice and easy to use management tools
  • Cons
    • Perhaps too complex

Kerberos/Heimdall

Other