Marc <m...@f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote: >> That simply isn't true, and I am baffled that you don't know that >> replication works with a two server active/active setup for years now! >> Two separate instances (active/active) on two different continents are a >> completely reliable failover scenario for years now. > > Maybe it works like this in your environment? Maybe if the load increases you > run into trouble? The director is making sure you never utilize an > active/active situation from the perspective of user access. The user is only > accessing one server. It is quite a different story when the same user starts > writing to both servers at the same time.
If I do rapidly inject tens of thousands of mails locally on both servers SIMULTANEOUSLY for the very same user I never ever loose one of it. Tested numerous times before rolling it out. In the very beginning of Timo's publishing replication it had had flaws, but other users and myself tested it while Timo enhances his code (and IIRC once even rewrote it from scratch). For years now it runs as expected and documented. As mentioned in this thread this ist true for small setups. Regards, Michael _______________________________________________ dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
