Sander Smeenk wrote: > Our mailsetup consists of about 8 separate clusters of servers sharing a > common task dealing with mail ranging from incoming to imap servers.
Looks like a solid setup, as far as I can see. > On the incoming end (mx) we now have about ~5 servers with a single AMD > Opteron 2.8GHz Dual-Core CPU, 4G ram, and just one SATA-II disk as > storage isn't important. But why not use a raid1 instead of the one disk? It will increase redundancy even more. Now I understand that in your load balanced setup if one or a few servers' disks would die the system would still function. But you would have to clone/recreate the system and bring it back up. With a raid1 you would only have to replace the broken disk and that's it (or if you had a hot spare you had to do nothing). > total. Maildirs for the users are stored on NetApp filers. Netapp uses NFS I assume? How well does it work with imap? As far as I know using imap on anything but unix format mailboxes on a networked filesystem like NFS can cause problems due to file locking and such. > have their spool in memory and 'message logging' is turned off (-Mvl > doesn't work). I remember reading on here that having the spool in memory isn't such a good idea, but I forgot the exact reasons. > We call it SWAMP, short for 'Sendmail Wasn't an Acceptable Mail Product'. ;-) Greetings, Jeroen -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
