On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:22:42PM -0500, Kris Kelley wrote:
[snip]
> > Yeah, that's because qmail-getpw does the bouncing.
>
> Makes sense. Okay, so if I make qmail-getpw either not do a directory
> check, or handle the results differently, then there shouldn't be any lost
> or bounced email, even if the NFS mount happens to disappear between
> qmail-getpw and qmail-local. Correct?
Correct.
If you're using users/assign, qmail-getpw is skipped, but qmail-local
isn't. Empirical proof that qmail-local doesn't bounce on broken homedirs :)
> > > The only general problem is that the NFS timeouts may clog the
> concurrencylocal
> > > limits, but then if you have no homes, there's nothing to delivery
> anyway.
> >
> > That depends. Where I work we have homedirs spread over about 40
> > userservers, which means indeed one can be down while the others are up.
>
> There will only be one server for user directories, at least to begin with.
> So, yeah, hitting the concurrencylocal limit won't be an issue.
Good.
> Michael Boyiaz's idea is a good one too. Sounds like it would make planned
> outages easy to wade through.
Jups, think I'm gonna steal that one a bit :)
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
'/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
