Wednesday, December 20, 2006, 12:28:21 PM, Len Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Thanks Martin. That is on my list as well. In our case, we can have the >>website go down for a while and people don't say much. But take away their >>email and things get ugly... :o
LC> [Snip] LC> Assuming the disk is the most unreliable (mechanical) component AND LC> is the location of mail storage, every business mail server should be LC> running RAID 1 on all disks. This gives in-box redundancy. RAID 1+0 is better, although more expensive. LC> [Snip] LC> With the MX front-end receiving from Internet, and providing a LC> reliable store/forward buffer in front of the mailbox server, any LC> down-time by the mailbox server is less panicky because the front-end LC> MX continues queuing inbound mail. The MX front-end only relieves the concern about mail getting returned. The primary panic and pressure continues to be from the customers who cannot send or receive during the period in which Imail is down. I think it is a good idea to have a warm Imail backup server AND either dual MX front-ends at the same MX-priority level or a warm MX front-end backup server. They always break at 3 am or otherwise at the very worst possible time. LC> [Snip] LC> Len ---- Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.inetconcepts.net (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049 ---- To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
