-
From: Mitch (WebCob)
To: Lars Holmstrm ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 9:04 PM
Subject: RE: [courier-users] Disaster tolerant IMAP and SMTP ?
You've got a few things to look into Lars - this isn't really a
courier question...
You need to look at distributed
Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lars Holmström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: [courier-users] Disaster tolerant IMAP and SMTP ?
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Lars Holmström wrote:
I consider building a disaster tolerant mailsystem for in and outgoing
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Lars Holmström wrote:
Some one pointed out that this an off-topic problem. I did some research and
got some feedback from this list and will probably build an example of a
redundant system, and this will be based on a clustered multi site file
system.
Have you considered
- Original Message -
From: Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Lars Holmström [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: [courier-users] Disaster tolerant IMAP and SMTP ?
On Sat, 12 Jul 2003, Lars Holmström wrote:
I consider
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [courier-users] Disaster tolerant IMAP and SMTP ?
Some one pointed out that this an off-topic problem. I did some research
and
got some feedback from this list and will probably build an example of a
redundant system, and this will be based on a clustered multi site file
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Lars Holmström wrote:
I am not entirely familiar with Linux clustered filesystem. Maybe some one
could point me in a direction for a real implementation for a disaster
tolerant mailserver ?
As far as I understand the inode modification concept require applications
to be
On Monday 14 July 2003 12:18, Lars Holmström wrote:
Some other file systems (like GFS) requires specific hardware as far
as I understand (iSCSI or FC) and most of the Clustered file systems
simply share the storage, usually SCSI and would sometimes be
somewhat limited.
My experience comes
iSCSI has nothing to do with hardware. iSCSI is Internet SCSI.
It's SCSI over Internet. On Linux you can easily use
'hdc=ide-scsi' or
some such, but I doubt that's necessary. With iSCSI, hardware doesn't
really enter into the equation, anyway -- it's just providing a block
device over the
You're missing the basic point.
Most of today's disk drives and disk arrays don't have Ethernet adapters.
Yes, iSCSI is a protocol, but if you can't put that protocol over a wire
through which you can reach a provider, the distinction is pedantic at best.
In order for it to be useful, there
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Roger B.A Klorese wrote:
You're missing the basic point.
I don't think so.
Most of today's disk drives and disk arrays don't have Ethernet adapters.
True.
Yes, iSCSI is a protocol, but if you can't put that protocol over a wire
through which you can reach a provider,
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 14 July 2003 13:31, Jon Nelson wrote:
To which I replied (summarized): iSCSI has nothing to do with
hardware. and I proceeded to yammer about how iSCSI is a protocol
that essentially provides a block device over ethernet. My choice of
To which I replied (summarized): iSCSI has nothing to do with
hardware.
iSCSI is currently only spoken to rare and expensive hardware: Ethernet disk
targets.
and I proceeded to yammer about how iSCSI is a protocol that
essentially
provides a block device over ethernet. My choice of the
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Roger B.A Klorese wrote:
To which I replied (summarized): iSCSI has nothing to do with
hardware.
iSCSI is currently only spoken to rare and expensive hardware: Ethernet disk
targets.
I disagree, and I (try) to back up my claims below.
and I proceeded to yammer
Didn't you *just say* that iSCSI is currently only spoken to rare and
expensive hardware. Are IDE drives rare and expensive?
No, but using even a $350 PC to talk to a $200 drive makes it a $550 drive.
Seriously.
If you are building a storage system for networked storage,
you already
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Tim Hunter wrote:
Roger B.A Klorese wrote:
You're missing the basic point.
This needs to be taken off list, its way off topic now, and although hearing
a conclusion to the argument would be nice, the argument itself does not
need to be here.
If you want to
On Monday 14 July 2003 14:33, Jon Nelson wrote:
Link #4 from google, searching for 'iSCSI'.
http://linux-iscsi.sourceforge.net/
also:
googlin' for 'iscsi linux' nets 3-4 projects, including ones from
Cisco, IBM and Intel.
Those would be initiators (think clients) and not targets. Target
I consider building a disaster tolerant
mailsystemfor in and outgoing mail.
Ialready havetwo ISPs and MX records
that direct incoming mailtraffic properly.
The problem seems to be the IMAP.
Does any one have a suggestion for how to do this
?
/Lars
Ps. Disaster tolerant in my view is
You can have two address entries in your DNS to imap.foo.bar
in BIND :
imapIN A 1.2.3.4
imapIN A 4.3.2.1
This will do a round-robin load balancing ... and when some server goes
down .. maybe you can't get a response, but if you retry the other one
will get the
The question is about how to create a distributed
imap-server with a multiple site storage.
/Lars
- Original Message -
From:
James A
Baker
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 5:51
PM
Subject: Re: [courier-users] Disaster
tolerant IMAP
)
To: Lars Holmström ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 9:04
PM
Subject: RE: [courier-users] Disaster
tolerant IMAP and SMTP ?
You've got a few things to look into Lars - this isn't really a courier
question...
You
need to look at distributed replicated
:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Lars
HolmströmSent: July 12, 2003 10:10 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [courier-users]
Disaster tolerant IMAP and SMTP ?
The question is about how to create a distributed
imap-server with a multiple site storage
/
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Lars
HolmströmSent: July 12, 2003 12:11 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [courier-users]
Disaster tolerant IMAP and SMTP ?
One of my options would be to provide a NFS
mountpoint that I ca provide
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [courier-users] Disaster tolerant IMAP and SMTP ?
Date: 12 Jul 2003 12:57:02 -0300
You can have two address entries in your DNS to imap.foo.bar
in BIND :
imap IN A 1.2.3.4
imap IN A 4.3.2.1
This will do a round-robin load balancing ... and when some
be made
to listen...
m/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Matt
Pavlovich
Sent: July 12, 2003 2:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [courier-users] Disaster tolerant IMAP and SMTP ?
Using a low DNS TTL is not a very reliable method
24 matches
Mail list logo
