Gary wrote: >> Also, relay1 is the SAME machine as relay2 and relay3, yet it always >> seems backed up. Is this because its the first server listed? Should I >> try rotating relay1 to the end of our pool for some domains so that, if >> spammers and/or non-compliant mail servers pull the first MX record >> instead of rotating, could this mean something?
> This is puzzling. I would think there would be no difference in the > load on the servers, but this does depend on what the name servers > serve up. It may be a good idea to manually provide different > priorities on some of your domains (make relay1 the highest, or even > leave it out). How are you determining the number of messages received > by each server? Maybe they are receiving the same number now, but > relay1 cannot handle them as well as the others because of some as yet > unseen problem. I would spend some time reading your maillog for clues > to problems. Maybe some name servers that cache your records do not support round robin, so they always dish up the first server. Maybe reordering the MX records for 2/3 of your domains would help balance the load, as you suggested. relay1 relay2 relay3 relay2 relay3 relay1 relay3 relay1 relay2 Gary V ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ AMaViS-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amavis-user AMaViS-FAQ:http://www.amavis.org/amavis-faq.php3 AMaViS-HowTos:http://www.amavis.org/howto/
