On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.9.2010, at 7.00, Noel Butler wrote:
I do take exception to be told this issue can be fixed, but NFS users
are not worth it, which is essentially what he told us, I dare say if
this list was flooded by dovecot NFS users
On 10/09/2010 07:50, Edward avanti wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Timo Sirainent...@iki.fi wrote:
On 3.9.2010, at 7.00, Noel Butler wrote:
I do take exception to be told this issue can be fixed, but NFS users
are not worth it, which is essentially what he told us, I dare
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 09:50 +0200, Cor Bosman wrote:
Hi Noel,
I do take exception to be told this issue can be fixed, but NFS users
are not worth it, which is essentially what he told us, I dare say if
I guess he told you this in private? The way i understand it the
yep, we had a
Tim,
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 12:26 -0700, Tim Traver wrote:
yes, there is no change on the delivery performance, as dovecot-lda is
just a delivery program to the Maildir just like any other. The thing
that it does different is update the dovecot uidlist and update the
index with a new mail.
On 7.9.2010, at 11.41, Noel Butler wrote:
but as I've said (many times now) imap is not an issue here, as primary
use is pop3 and rarely is leave on server used based on some useage
tests over the mail store directories
BTW. Dovecot is primarily an IMAP server and optimized for that. For
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 07:16 +1000, Edward avanti wrote:
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 8/31/2010 10:22, Ariel Biener wrote:
Oh, and Timo, I don't think we are just a couple of NFS users. Maildir
and NFS are not as uncommon as
you'd
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 07:22 +1000, Edward avanti wrote:
why you reply with 7 page of rubbish?
nasty, he was trying to explain it, even though you (i, and some others)
feel its irrelevant , perhaps this subject could have bene modified to
remove director :)
By a quick skim of this (I didnt
FFS Gerard keep your self appointed net copping to hte other usual
lists, even though on one of them (MailSCaner) you were told by JF that
anyone can post in anyway they want, including top post. your not a
moderator here, stop playing one.
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 18:19 -0400, Jerry wrote:
On
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 22:36 -0700, Tim Traver wrote:
As I read down the thread, I realized that many of the posters were
pointing out that it shouldn't be used because postfix or qmail can
deliver without problems. But in doing that, you lose the performance
gain (and in my case the use of
Hi Noel,
I do take exception to be told this issue can be fixed, but NFS users
are not worth it, which is essentially what he told us, I dare say if
I guess he told you this in private? The way i understand it the
index-over-nfs problem can not be fixed 100%. I know for a fact Timo
tried very
On 3.9.2010, at 7.00, Noel Butler wrote:
I do take exception to be told this issue can be fixed, but NFS users
are not worth it, which is essentially what he told us, I dare say if
this list was flooded by dovecot NFS users asking he'd quickly change
his mind, but as everyone here knows,
For those that are worried about the md5 hash sending out most users to 1
server and thus loadbalancing badly. This doesnt seem to be the case. I just
pointed one of our test webmail environments to a director cluster
(2 director servers behind a foundry, pointing to 2 real imap servers), and
On 9/2/2010 11:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 22:36 -0700, Tim Traver wrote:
As I read down the thread, I realized that many of the posters were
pointing out that it shouldn't be used because postfix or qmail can
deliver without problems. But in doing that, you lose the
Hi,
We use Dovecot only recent, but many I speak use for very many year, if
director was really need, why it only come about now and not 5 or more year
ago, all many mail network run broken for so many year? I no think so.
It might compliment some situation, but not suitable or advantage for
On 2010-09-02 9:08 AM, Cor Bosman c...@xs4all.nl wrote:
NFS has a problem where caching of the files
can cause each imap server to see outdated information. Server 1 could
have just written some updates into the index file, but Server 2 doesnt
see this yet, and writes conflicting data into the
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 09:47 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-09-02 9:08 AM, Cor Bosman c...@xs4all.nl wrote:
NFS has a problem where caching of the files
can cause each imap server to see outdated information. Server 1 could
have just written some updates into the index file, but Server
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 8/31/2010 10:22, Ariel Biener wrote:
Oh, and Timo, I don't think we are just a couple of NFS users. Maildir
and NFS are not as uncommon as
you'd think, even in very large installations.
NFS with maildir has
why you reply with 7 page of rubbish?
yes we all see you fan of director, many not.
why go on tangent about it, it already said it not for us, director not able
to help on 24 inbound mail server, else might well turn it all off now, you
clear yet? on any other list you be label troll
director is
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:22:00 +1000
Edward avanti edward.ava...@gmail.com articulated:
why you reply with 7 page of rubbish?
yes we all see you fan of director, many not.
why go on tangent about it, it already said it not for us, director
not able to help on 24 inbound mail server, else might
have you been told where you might go lately and do with some part your
anatomy?
this Timo list, not you list, best remember this since you nobody this list
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jerry dovecot.u...@seibercom.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:22:00 +1000
Edward avanti
-Original Message-
From: Edward avanti
have you been told where you might go lately and do with some part your
anatomy?
this Timo list, not you list, best remember this since you nobody this list
Seriously? Grow up and/or take it off-list.
-Brad
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 09:18 +0200, Cor Bosman wrote:
Noel, I think you just dont quite understand the problem the director is
solving.
The issue is that NFS is not lock-safe over multiple servers. We have 35
imap servers accessing a central NFS cluster. (we have over a million
mailboxes)
Hi Noel, if you dont need the director, then thats great right? Why does
anyone need to justify anything? Just dont use it, end of discussion. Those
of us that do have a need for it, can use it anyways. Even without your
agreement? Is that such a big problem?
we have a some total of 2 imap
Hi,
Postfix has this issue as well. So does qmail. So does exim. It has nothing
to do with the software being used. It is a problem in the NFS protocol.
Just to be clear. Of course these programs wont have this issue when used
with dovecot-imap, because obviously they wont be updating any
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 09:18 +0200, Cor Bosman wrote:
imap access is not common in this country, it is in fact extremely rare,
common only for webmail servers.
Much of Asia also no use imap as primary mail for
On 8/31/2010 10:22, Ariel Biener wrote:
Oh, and Timo, I don't think we are just a couple of NFS users. Maildir
and NFS are not as uncommon as
you'd think, even in very large installations.
NFS with maildir has been the gold standard for a long time, whether the
NFS server be insert
We're a similar installation (60-70k users, FAS3050 cluster).
We have been using perdition (IMAP/POP redirector) software
for a while. The IMAP/POP.ourdomain A records point to 2 front ends,
which all they do is to redirect the IMAP/POP session to the a specific
mail server for each user, based
Hi,
If you don't mind random Dovecot errors about index corruption I guess you're
fine with how it works now. I guess your mails are delivered to maildirs by
qmail? If you ever switch to Dovecot LDA you'll probably start getting more
errors. And if you ever plan to switch to dbox format
We might be a slightly larger install than you (60k users, mail on FAS 3170
Metrocluster), but we have noticed corruption issues and the director is
definitely going to see use in our shop. We still use Sendmail+procmail for
delivery, so no issue there... but we've got hordes of IMAP users
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Cor Bosman wrote:
We might be a slightly larger install than you (60k users, mail on FAS 3170
Metrocluster), but we have noticed corruption issues and the director is
definitely going to see use in our shop. We still use Sendmail+procmail for
delivery, so no issue there...
Noel, I think you just dont quite understand the problem the director is
solving.
The issue is that NFS is not lock-safe over multiple servers. We have 35
imap servers accessing a central NFS cluster. (we have over a million
mailboxes) We offer IMAP to end user clients, and through webmail. This
On 28.8.2010, at 8.18, Cor Bosman wrote:
What the dovecot director is doing is ensuring that sessions from the same
user all get directed to the same imap server, so NFS locking works safely.
It's actually not about locking, but about caching.
Brandon,
I just fail to see why adding more complexity, and essentially making
$9K load balancers redundant, is the way of the future, Timo has said
its very safe for index's if non dovecot programs write to the maildir,
so why the hell is it deliberately left risky using dovecots deliver,
I've
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
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Brandon Davidson brand...@uoregon.eduwrote:
Noel,
On 8/26/10 9:59 PM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
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
Noel,
On 8/26/10 11:28 PM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
I just fail to see why adding more complexity, and essentially making
$9K load balancers redundant, is the way of the future.
To each their own. If your setup works without it, then fine, don't use
it... but I don't see why
On 27.8.2010, at 5.59, Noel Butler wrote:
I've asked if it can avoid touching
the index files before (see a thread as recent as a few weeks back),
You can avoid touching indexes:
protocol lda {
mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir:INDEX=MEMORY
}
But you still have the problem of
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 04:04 -0700, Brandon Davidson wrote:
To each their own. If your setup works without it, then fine, don't use
it... but I don't see why you feel the need to disparage it either. It's
I'll some it up put well by someone who mailed me offlist...
mx-in-1 gets the
Halo,
Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load balancer.
I fail to see advantage if anything it add in more point of failure, with
several hundred thousand user, we can ill afford to mess around or add to
complexity, sometime keeping it simple is simply way to be, when use
On 26.8.2010, at 23.54, Edward avanti wrote:
Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load balancer.
It guarantees that the same user is accessed via the same server. Hardware LB
can at best assign the connections from the same IP to the same server (but not
e.g. new mail
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
On 26.8.2010, at 23.54, Edward avanti wrote:
Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load
balancer.
It guarantees that the same user is accessed via the same server. Hardware
LB can at best assign the
On 27.8.2010, at 1.47, Edward avanti wrote:
Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load
balancer.
It guarantees that the same user is accessed via the same server. Hardware
LB can at best assign the connections from the same IP to the same server
(but not e.g. new
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
Noel,
On 8/26/10 9:59 PM, Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote:
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
