On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Stan Hoeppner <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/18/2012 7:54 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: >> On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 20:44 +0800, Lee Standen wrote: > >>> * All mail storage presented via NFS over 10Gbps Ethernet (Jumbo Frames) >>> >>> * Postfix will feed new email to Dovecot via LMTP >>> >>> * Dovecot servers have been split based on their role >>> >>> - Dovecot LDA Servers (running LMTP protocol) >>> >>> - Dovecot POP/IMAP servers (running POP/IMAP protocols) >> >> You're going to run into NFS caching troubles with the above split >> setup. I don't recommend it. You will see error messages about index >> corruption with it, and with dbox it can cause metadata loss. >> http://wiki2.dovecot.org/NFS http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Director > > Would it be possible to fix this NFS mdbox index corruption issue in > this split scenario by using a dual namespace and disabling indexing on > the INBOX? The goal being no index file collisions between LDA and imap > processes. Maybe something like: > > namespace { > separator = / > prefix = "#mbox/" > location = mbox:~/mail:INBOX=/var/mail/%u:INDEX=MEMORY > inbox = yes > hidden = yes > list = no > } > namespace { > separator = / > prefix = > location = mdbox:~/mdbox > } > > Client access to new mail might be a little slower, but if it eliminates > the index corruption issue and allows the split architecture, it may be > a viable option. > > -- > Stan
It could be that I botched my test up somehow, but when I tested something similar yesterday (pointing the index at another location on the LDA), it didn't work. I was sending from the LDA server and confirmed that the messages made it to storage/m.# but without the real indexes being updated. When I checked the mailbox via IMAP, it never seemed to register that there was a message there, so I'm guessing that dovecot never looks at the storage files but just relies on the indexes to be correct. That sound right, Timo?
