Date: 30 Jul 2001 11:25:09 -0400 From: Chris Shenton <chris@shenton.org> To: Fabrizio Ravazzini <freefabri@yahoo.it> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Mail Toaster CLUSTER Message-ID: <877kwqxwve.fsf@thanatos.shenton.org> In-Reply-To: <20010730134547.513.qmail@web20104.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20010730134547.513.qmail@web20104.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Fabrizio Ravazzini <freefabri@yahoo.it> writes: > So I understood that's better Two MX with > balance.sourceforge.net wich shares the same Raid Disk > Array for the Maildirs? Not sure I understand this. I think using a reliable backend store for maildirs is a very good thing; the Maildir format makes crash-proof NFS storage a reality, but shared RAID would be good too. If I had lots of money, I'd use a clustered pair of NetApps. I don't know of any RAID disk products that can be shared by two or more hosts, but I haven't looked -- any suggestions? I am not yet convinced there's any advantage of using a load-balancing box in front of the MX boxes, since MX self-balances via DNS. Now if these boxes will also serve POP and IMAP, you might want a balancer but I expect the pseudo-round-robin you get with DNS would be sufficient. My biggest concern would be introducing a single box, which becomes a single point of failure, whether it be a solution from VQmail or balance.sourceforge.net. When I've used load balancers in the base (F5's BIG/ip), we've *always* deployed them in pairs, so that if one fails the other takes over automatically. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?877kwqxwve.fsf>