Difference between revisions of "Centralized Authentication Proposal"

From CDOT Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 2: Line 2:
  
  
''Arguments For''
+
===Arguments For===
 
* More easily managed users
 
* More easily managed users
 
* consistent home directories over NFS
 
* consistent home directories over NFS
Line 10: Line 10:
 
* Less inconsistencies throughout builders
 
* Less inconsistencies throughout builders
  
''Arguments Against''
+
===Arguments Against===
 
* Additonal services running on Honkgong
 
* Additonal services running on Honkgong
 
* Increased network traffic
 
* Increased network traffic
Line 16: Line 16:
  
  
''Means and methods''
+
===Means and methods===
  
'''NIS/NIS+'''
+
====NIS/NIS+====
 
* Pros
 
* Pros
 
** Quick and easy
 
** Quick and easy
Line 25: Line 25:
 
**
 
**
  
'''OpenLDAP/389 Directory'''
+
====OpenLDAP/389 Directory====
 
- Standard
 
- Standard
  
'''Kerberos/Heimdall'''
+
====Kerberos/Heimdall====
  
'''Other'''
+
====Other====

Revision as of 17:03, 23 April 2012

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

Arguments Against

  • Additonal services running on Honkgong
  • Increased network traffic
  • additonal point of failure


Means and methods

NIS/NIS+

  • Pros
    • Quick and easy
  • Cons

OpenLDAP/389 Directory

- Standard

Kerberos/Heimdall

Other