I am still finding these models confusing. Specifically when it comes to the benefits of multi-site configuration. I'm hoping someone can clarify. Here's a 2-site example:
- I have a Dallas site with a local SSO installed on it's own server separate from vCenter
- I have a California site with a local SSO installed on it's own server separate from vCenter
In the first scenario, I configure both sites with Basic SSO:
- To manage both sites Administrators will need to login to with 2 separate web client sessions correct?
- If so, how would remote performance compare to say managing a 4.1 remotely in linked mode as we do now?
- If the Dallas SSO goes down, no one can manage Dallas until it is back up correct?
In the second scenario, I configure Multi-Site with Dallas as Primary SSO:
- In this scenerio, a local SSO replica is maintained at remote sites only for faster "local" access
- I don't see any advantage for remote management from the above Basic configuration. Just added overhead?
- In Multi-Site, if the Dallas SSO goes down Dallas is still inaccessible until it is back up correct? (unless you temporarily add that vCenter to another SSO)
The only reason I see to do multi-site is if you are planning to use Linked-Mode and ONLY because it seems to be a prerequisite requirement. The current manual import/export multi-site SSO requirements and other overhead will cause my team to now rethink the benefits Linked Mode. Unless I'm misunderstanding, the SSO topology implementations are very sketchy and I may opt for Basic Mode at all sites until this is more fully cooked?