On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Joel Reicher wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why is there *any* interest in getting NFS and IMAP interoperate? They both seem to be different solutions to the same problem, i.e. distributed access to storage, but IMAP is application-specific.
It's a easy (if inefficient) way to do horizontal scaling: you have several NFS backends and add more to get additional capacity without having to touch the existing systems. It used to be fairly common for large (multi million user) ISPs to store email on NFS toaster devices, even though the only presentation to users was POP and Webmail.
I inherited a mail system based on NFS. It worked reasonably well, though I certainly wouldn't want to try running GByte size mbox files over NFS.
These days we use a cluster of Cyrus systems hidden behind an IMAP proxy. This works really well, though we did have to add replication to Cyrus (a version of which has been merged into Cyrus 2.3) to get the same level of reliability as the old NFS toasters.
-- David Carter Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University Computing Service, Phone: (01223) 334502 New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Fax: (01223) 334679 Cambridge UK. CB2 3QH. _______________________________________________ Imap-uw mailing list [email protected] https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
