On Jun 19, 2012, at 16:36, John Hudak wrote: > He stated his requirement, specifically, the need for a high availability > system. The details of what lead him to having this requirement are somewhat > irrelevant - unless you want to go down the path of eliciting all the quality > attributes and look at architectural tradeoffs (which is not what he is > asking for). He wants some guidance on architectures for high availability > postfix services. He did not state his availability requirements, e.g. 0.9, > 0.99, 0.999 etc, but he doesn't have to. This is, if you will, his > requirement. The solutions are the many architectural approaches that would > be discussed in this, and other forums.
I absolutely agree. With Ansgar, that is. Certain types of questions pop up again and again, and a lot of the problems that people bring to this list tend to originate in an incomplete (or incorrect) understanding of the software, its scope, and the protocols involved. Describing the problem instead the perceived solution will allow feedback on your assumptions, and it never hurts to have those fact checked by the many experienced people on this list. Between them, they operate everything from mom-and-cat home servers to large scale clusters, and chances are that at least one of them has already solved the same problem before. Describing your problem is simply the best way to tap into this list's potential. It'll get you better answers, faster. Cya, Jona -- > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ansgar Wiechers <li...@planetcobalt.net> > wrote: > On 2012-06-18 Kaushal Shriyan wrote: > > Are there any High Availability Solution for Postfix SMTP Server meaning > > primary and secondary nodes in Active/Active or Active/Passive Clustering > > mode? > > Please describe the problem you're trying to solve instead of what you > perceive as the solution. > > Regards > Ansgar Wiechers > -- > "Abstractions save us time working, but they don't save us time learning." > --Joel Spolsky
