On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:34:37 -0500 Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Feb 3, 2007, at 12:41 AM, Christopher D. Clausen wrote: > >> > >> Are we delivering email into AFS? > > > > I don't know how we're currently planning to set up home directories > > w.r.t. AFS, so I have no idea. > > Thinking about this some more, we should probably *not* deliver mail > to an AFS volume, because there is no good reason (that I can think > of) do so, and one rather significant reason to not do so (namely: > overhead). > > If anyone can think of a good reason to do this, let me know. Of course, the reason is easier management. > Also, can someone please refresh my memory about what we've decided > with respect to putting home directories in AFS? If we have decided > to put home dirs completely in AFS, mail would have to be delivered > elsewhere, but then we would still need AFS credentials in order to > access the user's .procmailrc and .forward. I don't think our users receive more email than Maildir in AFS could handle. > So, may I suggest that we put homes under a local NFS partition, which > would only be exported to the machines in the rack? Or failing that, > deliver mail to a separate NFS volume outside of home, but with areas > for each user? The NFS server would be deleuze, so that mail gets > delivered locally and puts less stress on the NFS server (lots of > small files == much pain for NFS). Then squirrelmail and courier > could also serve mail locally, without having to access many small > files across the network. I am not saying I wouldn't accept anything else except AFS, but anything NFS would take us lightyears back in technical evolution. Not to mention that we'd have to split disk space among system, AFS and NFS partitions in non-optimal ways. -doc _______________________________________________ HCoop-SysAdmin mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-sysadmin
