On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 04:32:56PM -0600, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
I want to setup multiple servers running (the same) mailman lists.
The ways I can think of doing this is either:
Been there, done that, didn't work.
Option 1:
Setup a master machine with everything on it
At 06:02 PM 5/8/2001 -0600, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Trying to keep the subscriber databases in sync across machines is going to
be problematic.
Tow things I can think off of the top of my head, one being the easiest
(maybe).
a) NFS
Not designed
I want to setup multiple servers running (the same) mailman lists.
The ways I can think of doing this is either:
Option 1:
Setup a master machine with everything on it and export the
mailman structure for NFS so the other machines can mount it,
and use it.
On 5/8/01 3:32 PM, Ashley M. Kirchner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I want to setup multiple servers running (the same) mailman lists.
Before we start building this beast -- why?
Trying to keep the subscriber databases in sync across machines is going to
be problematic. Before we build it,
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Before we start building this beast -- why?
Load balancing. I prefer having one server running mailman and having all
the lists on it, however this means that machine will also get hit pretty hard
when several lists get to receive/send messages. Having a cluster
On 5/8/01 4:01 PM, Ashley M. Kirchner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Before we start building this beast -- why?
Load balancing.
I figured, but I wanted to make sure.
I prefer having one server running mailman and having all
the lists on it, however this means that machine will also get hit
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
And services like yahoo have programmers on staff to write this stuff, and
admins on staff to manage it, and budgets for the hardware, and...
Something I don't have. :) That's why I'm trying to go as light as I can, with
currently (working) software.
How big
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
Trying to keep the subscriber databases in sync across machines is going to
be problematic.
Tow things I can think off of the top of my head, one being the easiest
(maybe).
a) NFS
or b) If mailman has a way of sending a signal out when something changes
On Tue, 08 May 2001 17:55:21 -0600
Ashley M Kirchner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
And services like yahoo have programmers on staff to write this
stuff, and admins on staff to manage it, and budgets for the
hardware, and...
Something I don't have. :) That's why I'm
Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
And your average delay in delivery is -- how long?
Generally, two to six at the most. If I don't clean out the queue because of
nasty remote servers not working properly, it can go into a day or two. That's
generally when I'll get a phone call because someone
On Tue, 8 May 2001, Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Load balancing. I prefer having one server running mailman and having all
the lists on it, however this means that machine will also get hit pretty hard
when several lists get to receive/send messages.
Most of the pain is in sending the
On 5/8/01 5:02 PM, Ashley M. Kirchner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) NFS
I wouldn't even try.
or b) If mailman has a way of sending a signal out when something changes on
the .db files
No, it doesn't. Doesn't necessarily need to.
What comes to mind with this last option though is,
12 matches
Mail list logo
