Hi, Paweł Tęcza schrieb, Am 16.09.2008 10:04:
> Svetozar Mihailov pisze: >> 2.2 I do not want to use load balancer because if load balancer dies >> everything stop. I will implement monitoring (ping?) daemon, which will >> add/remove servers to dns if some of them dies. Is there recomended >> minimal TTL for dns records in this case? > > Yes, it's true that only one load balancer is not good idea. Hence, you > should have two redundant load balancers or second backup load balancer > on the alert. you could do "poor man's loadbalancing" by assigning several IP adresses to the same virtual host name which acts as MX. This way there is some kind of round robin (not a real load balancing) among the mail servers. We do this with a little "cluster" system for failover of different services, including mail. We run the primary and secondary nameservers on the both nodes which advertise their IP adresses with TTL 60. So when a host goes down the nameserver is also down and the IP adress isn't advertised any more. That's not very sophisticated, but cheap... For what the folks want to pay for it it does a great job. Greets, Manuel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
