On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 08:54 +1000, Edward avanti wrote: > > > Halo, > > Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load > balancer. > > > it is no advantage over a dedicated hardware solution, but director does > not do the exact same thing. > > > > I fail to see advantage if anything it add in more point of failure, with > > > i agree with this and it is why we dont use it > > we use dovecots deliver with postfix and have noticed no problems, not > to say there was none, but if so, we dont notice it. > postfix looks up the user, it determines if it accepts the mail, if it > does, it queues it for mailscanner to do its stuff, then gives it back > to postfix, which is then told to give it to dovecots deliver, it makes > I have offlist discussion with Timo, he said help with I/O, you make good case, not more I/O intense than scanning mail, delivery just like router > no sense to me that it should then be sent to another machine just to be > stored on a remote file server, the same remote file server the initial > server assigned that conenction by a true load balancer has mounted and > would store it to as well.... would be miuch easier to have deliver > ignore the index file by an option, eliminating the corruption risks to > the index file and just storing the darm thing. or am i only one who > thinks mail systems do not need to be complex to run faultlessly, I > think those who feel the need to make it very complex are not only > looking for trouble, but further trying to justify their position to > their employer that they are indispensable. > > If operation is simple, is little to go wrong, when nothing go wrong, boss happy and my job safe > > > > > > if director service assign 60K user to each front end, how it handle if > 5K > > simultaneous user login, but all 5K happen to be assign to that one > machine, > > > that would be rare, but, technically speaking, if you are that large in > user numbers, it is a possible scenario > > We have 418K mailbox users > > > Is it really worth it? Do we really need this, or just let foundry switch > > handle it as it does now. > > We also have 24 front end SMTP server, these deliver mail to netapp > filer, > > all 24 plus 8 pop3 server and 2 webmail imap server all mount /vmail, so > all > > access same maildir. it seem work very effective thus far and for many > many > > > Sounds similar setup to us, smtp, pop3 and webmail all > mounting /var/vmail/ on a FAS2050, I've asked if it can avoid touching > the index files before (see a thread as recent as a few weeks back), > Timo is just not interested, to much work apparently for so little users > Oh my, so i waste time talking asking him for extra switch to deliver to ignore indexing, drat. > (although I never in all hte years ive been on this list, ever seen a > poll taken/question asked to users - about it, plus, well, every single > dovecot user is on this list, right? <sarcasm> anyway, mostly I guess > although it has risks, it seems to work for everyone who uses NFS anyway > and has done for very many years :) , maybe one day when Timo is so > bored and cant think of anything to add, he will give us an option, or a > dedicated deliver binary separate to normal deliver that does this) > > Maybe not many people here use time proven setup > /rant ( but its nice to know im not the only one here who feels this > way) > Cheers > >