Subject: Grouper Developers Forum
- From: Steve Edgar <>
- To: Grouper Dev <>, Grouper Users <>
- Subject: More Fun With Large Groups - Singleton Pairs
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:22:06 -0500
Here at Cornell, we would like to deploy Grouper as a replacement for our current central AuthZ system. Group/member info would be provisioned out to a LDAP directory server.
Some requirements we have for the directory server are ...
1) Must support private groups
2) Must support very large groups (190K members)
3) All queries must be fast, regardless of group size
4) All clients must be able to use a simple and consistent query
As posted previously, we've found using static groups allows us achieve all but number 3 above. To get around that problem, we've looked into using "singleton pairs", which works like this ...
Say we have a group named ...
... and it contains these members ...
... and it is a private group which can only be read by a client authenticated as the Kerberos principal ...
For the group man.fred, 2 entries (singleton pairs) would get created in directory server ...
Each cn entry is created by combining the group name and a member.
Quick disclaimer... I made up the groupname attribute. Whatever attribute name is appropriate would go there.
To support private groups, we have an ACI which checks the Kerberos principal of the authenticated client against cornelledugroupreadpriv. An anonymous bind can not read a private group.
A client can make the 3 simple queries we need ...
1) Check for membership. To find out of is a member of man.fred, search for ...
Or, search for ...
(I am not a directory person, but I am assuming the second search is slower.)
2) List groups for a member. To list all groups for , search for all entries which contain ...
... and return each groupname that matches.
3) List members in a group. To list all members in a group, search for ...
... and return each hasmember that matches.
One drawback is this approach uses a lot of entries. However, our testing shows all 3 queries are fast, regardless of group size.
We realize another drawback is we would have to do our own provisioning from Grouper to directory server.
We are interested in what other folks think of using this "singleton pairs" approach.
- More Fun With Large Groups - Singleton Pairs, Steve Edgar, 01/31/2008
- Re: [grouper-dev] More Fun With Large Groups - Singleton Pairs, Brendan Bellina, 01/31/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.