Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
Appreciate it! I think I'm leaning away from it. Still trying to come up with a good (cheap) solution to the problem though. Heartbeat would be fine if I had everything at one location on one connection, but I really need to keep a remote set of everything for when the storms come rolling through. Sigh... Thanks, Scott Michael Colvin wrote: But the result is the same. So, you're failing over 2 nameservers at each location instead of 1. TTL sill still come into play with external DNS' caching the results prior to failover. Also, keep in mind, some DNS don't play well an don't honor your TTL's. I think I understand what you're trying to accomplish, and it might work to some degree, and would be better than nothing, but it isn't really ideal, or even less than ideal... Even if you had short TTL's, and external DNS honored the TTL's, it would be very inefficient to have your DNS hammered from increased queries because of the short TTL's... Just my .02. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services www.norcalisp.com -Original Message- From: South Computers [mailto:i...@southcomputers.com] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 5:50 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please To clarify, ns1 would *not* failover to ns2. Both ns1 ns2 would failover to a second set of ns1 ns2's (duplicate but with different records). South Computers wrote: Thanks, Yes, that is always the problem with dns failover. But I have to say, it has worked extremely well with the paid service I use for the critical domains on a domain by domain basis. I think they just set the ttl very low. To keep it simple, what I'm thinking it that rather than pay for the service for hundreds of domains (I do a lot of affiliate marketing), maybe do it for the dns of the actual nameservers at the locations (both ns1 ns2), so IPs for them (my nameservers) would change on the fly as an outage occurs for both ns1 ns2. Naturally, both sets of nameservers would publish the IP addresses of the web servers for their own location only. Michael J. Colvin wrote: If I follow you right, the biggest issue would be the TTL of the DNS records. If you're using ns1, and everything resolves to the addresses contained in it at location 1, then if failover occurs to ns2, and thus site 2, that would work for new requests for DNS information. But, cached information, which is usually at least an hour or more, would still try to resolve to the old IP's. If site 1 is down, then traffic bound for site 1 (Cached requests) would fail. I may not have understood what you were trying to say though.. Mike -Original Message- From: South Computers [mailto:i...@southcomputers.com] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:17 AM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please That looks interesting. Been thinking about this myself a lot lately (failover, not load balancing, especially for http). Being in hurricane alley I think about this this time every year. Not too worried about mail, as I just use smtp routes to point everything back to primary mail server(s). I use dnsmadeeasy's failover services for my must be up sites, but wondering.. I have a sneaky idea. Maybe. Might I be cheating a bit if I were to: Setup a couple of domains on dnsmadeeasy (or any service that does failover reliably), and add failover service to each. Add records for ns1, ns2, whatever to each. Setup a dns server on each machine (different geographical locations). Each dns server would be configured to point to it's own set of records (for that location) Setup failover for ns1, ns2, etc at failover dns service to rollover to the live dns server, thus effectively failovering all records for everything on the dns server. With hundreds of domains, this could save a lot of money paying for individual failover service. Does this make sense? Thoughts? Scott Hughes wrote: I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott --- - - Qmailtoaster is sponsored by Vickers Consulting Group (www.vickersconsulting.com) Vickers Consulting Group offers Qmailtoaster support and installations. If you need professional help with your setup, contact them today
Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
That looks interesting. Been thinking about this myself a lot lately (failover, not load balancing, especially for http). Being in hurricane alley I think about this this time every year. Not too worried about mail, as I just use smtp routes to point everything back to primary mail server(s). I use dnsmadeeasy's failover services for my must be up sites, but wondering.. I have a sneaky idea. Maybe. Might I be cheating a bit if I were to: Setup a couple of domains on dnsmadeeasy (or any service that does failover reliably), and add failover service to each. Add records for ns1, ns2, whatever to each. Setup a dns server on each machine (different geographical locations). Each dns server would be configured to point to it's own set of records (for that location) Setup failover for ns1, ns2, etc at failover dns service to rollover to the live dns server, thus effectively failovering all records for everything on the dns server. With hundreds of domains, this could save a lot of money paying for individual failover service. Does this make sense? Thoughts? Scott Hughes wrote: I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott - Qmailtoaster is sponsored by Vickers Consulting Group (www.vickersconsulting.com) Vickers Consulting Group offers Qmailtoaster support and installations. If you need professional help with your setup, contact them today! - Please visit qmailtoaster.com for the latest news, updates, and packages. To unsubscribe, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-unsubscr...@qmailtoaster.com For additional commands, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-h...@qmailtoaster.com
RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
If I follow you right, the biggest issue would be the TTL of the DNS records. If you're using ns1, and everything resolves to the addresses contained in it at location 1, then if failover occurs to ns2, and thus site 2, that would work for new requests for DNS information. But, cached information, which is usually at least an hour or more, would still try to resolve to the old IP's. If site 1 is down, then traffic bound for site 1 (Cached requests) would fail. I may not have understood what you were trying to say though.. Mike -Original Message- From: South Computers [mailto:i...@southcomputers.com] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:17 AM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please That looks interesting. Been thinking about this myself a lot lately (failover, not load balancing, especially for http). Being in hurricane alley I think about this this time every year. Not too worried about mail, as I just use smtp routes to point everything back to primary mail server(s). I use dnsmadeeasy's failover services for my must be up sites, but wondering.. I have a sneaky idea. Maybe. Might I be cheating a bit if I were to: Setup a couple of domains on dnsmadeeasy (or any service that does failover reliably), and add failover service to each. Add records for ns1, ns2, whatever to each. Setup a dns server on each machine (different geographical locations). Each dns server would be configured to point to it's own set of records (for that location) Setup failover for ns1, ns2, etc at failover dns service to rollover to the live dns server, thus effectively failovering all records for everything on the dns server. With hundreds of domains, this could save a lot of money paying for individual failover service. Does this make sense? Thoughts? Scott Hughes wrote: I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott - Qmailtoaster is sponsored by Vickers Consulting Group (www.vickersconsulting.com) Vickers Consulting Group offers Qmailtoaster support and installations. If you need professional help with your setup, contact them today! - Please visit qmailtoaster.com for the latest news, updates, and packages. To unsubscribe, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-unsubscr...@qmailtoaster.com For additional commands, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-h...@qmailtoaster.com - Qmailtoaster is sponsored by Vickers Consulting Group (www.vickersconsulting.com) Vickers Consulting Group offers Qmailtoaster support and installations. If you need professional help with your setup, contact them today! - Please visit qmailtoaster.com for the latest news, updates, and packages. To unsubscribe, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-unsubscr...@qmailtoaster.com For additional commands, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-h...@qmailtoaster.com
Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
Thanks, Yes, that is always the problem with dns failover. But I have to say, it has worked extremely well with the paid service I use for the critical domains on a domain by domain basis. I think they just set the ttl very low. To keep it simple, what I'm thinking it that rather than pay for the service for hundreds of domains (I do a lot of affiliate marketing), maybe do it for the dns of the actual nameservers at the locations (both ns1 ns2), so IPs for them (my nameservers) would change on the fly as an outage occurs for both ns1 ns2. Naturally, both sets of nameservers would publish the IP addresses of the web servers for their own location only. Michael J. Colvin wrote: If I follow you right, the biggest issue would be the TTL of the DNS records. If you're using ns1, and everything resolves to the addresses contained in it at location 1, then if failover occurs to ns2, and thus site 2, that would work for new requests for DNS information. But, cached information, which is usually at least an hour or more, would still try to resolve to the old IP's. If site 1 is down, then traffic bound for site 1 (Cached requests) would fail. I may not have understood what you were trying to say though.. Mike -Original Message- From: South Computers [mailto:i...@southcomputers.com] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:17 AM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please That looks interesting. Been thinking about this myself a lot lately (failover, not load balancing, especially for http). Being in hurricane alley I think about this this time every year. Not too worried about mail, as I just use smtp routes to point everything back to primary mail server(s). I use dnsmadeeasy's failover services for my must be up sites, but wondering.. I have a sneaky idea. Maybe. Might I be cheating a bit if I were to: Setup a couple of domains on dnsmadeeasy (or any service that does failover reliably), and add failover service to each. Add records for ns1, ns2, whatever to each. Setup a dns server on each machine (different geographical locations). Each dns server would be configured to point to it's own set of records (for that location) Setup failover for ns1, ns2, etc at failover dns service to rollover to the live dns server, thus effectively failovering all records for everything on the dns server. With hundreds of domains, this could save a lot of money paying for individual failover service. Does this make sense? Thoughts? Scott Hughes wrote: I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott - Qmailtoaster is sponsored by Vickers Consulting Group (www.vickersconsulting.com) Vickers Consulting Group offers Qmailtoaster support and installations. If you need professional help with your setup, contact them today! - Please visit qmailtoaster.com for the latest news, updates, and packages. To unsubscribe, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-unsubscr...@qmailtoaster.com For additional commands, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-h...@qmailtoaster.com - Qmailtoaster is sponsored by Vickers Consulting Group (www.vickersconsulting.com) Vickers Consulting Group offers Qmailtoaster support and installations. If you need professional help with your setup, contact them today! - Please visit qmailtoaster.com for the latest news, updates, and packages. To unsubscribe, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-unsubscr...@qmailtoaster.com For additional commands, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-h...@qmailtoaster.com - Qmailtoaster is sponsored by Vickers Consulting Group (www.vickersconsulting.com) Vickers Consulting Group offers Qmailtoaster support and installations. If you need professional help with your setup, contact them today! - Please visit qmailtoaster.com for the latest news, updates, and packages. To unsubscribe, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-unsubscr...@qmailtoaster.com
RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
I would do both. :-) I would have redundant load balancers, at two different locations, that balance the loads between multiple servers at their respective locations. Then, use DNS (Also redundant at multiple locations) to round robin between the two locations. :-) Considering using VM for the DNS and Load Balancing portions, and perhaps the QMailToaster portion too, you could probably pull it off with one or two machines at each location. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services http://www.norcalisp.com/ www.norcalisp.com http://www.norcalisp.com/ _ From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott image001.gif
RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
I believe the dns load balancing is the most effective due to the nature of cost and simplicity. We have several F5 BigIP 3800 and there really pricy machines , but with there Global Load Balancing service it makes our life easy. From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott
Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
Michael, As a small company, we haven't gotten into VM systems as of yet. I want to but the price of those machines is still a bit on the high side - especially with brand name servers (Dell, HP, etc). Thanks to everyone for all the input on this idea! Scott On 5/24/10 4:07 PM, Michael Colvin wrote: I would do both. J I would have redundant load balancers, at two different locations, that balance the loads between multiple servers at their respective locations. Then, use DNS (Also redundant at multiple locations) to round robin between the two locations. J Considering using VM for the DNS and Load Balancing portions, and perhaps the QMailToaster portion too, you could probably pull it off with one or two machines at each location. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services www.norcalisp.com From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott
RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
I should have added, we are using a variation of: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/index.html That link should get you going. No cost, other than a simple, no frills server, depending on the load. Works great. Do a Google for Linux load balancing and you should find all kinds of articles. Or, you could go with already built stuff like Foundry's.But, if you're looking to scale affordably, do the LVM stuff. Works like a charm. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services http://www.norcalisp.com/ www.norcalisp.com http://www.norcalisp.com/ _ From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott image001.gif
RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
You can run VM on machines that are a couple years old, and can find them fairly cheap on Ebay or Craigslist. A couple of Dell 2650's, 2850's, or 1850's will run a couple of VM's with no problems. Depending on the amount of mail you are expecting and rack space availableity, you could probably do the load balancing, DNS and mail server all on a single Dell 2650 at each location, using VMWare ESXi, Zen, or pretty much most of the common VM's. The 2650's can be had pretty easily for around $200 - $300 w/drives. 2U of rack space at each location and you're done. If you need 1U's, go with the 1850's. Maybe $300 - $500 each, and only 1U. If it's still too much, then, yea, go with just the DNS Round Robin option. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services http://www.norcalisp.com/ www.norcalisp.com http://www.norcalisp.com/ _ From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:32 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please Michael, As a small company, we haven't gotten into VM systems as of yet. I want to but the price of those machines is still a bit on the high side - especially with brand name servers (Dell, HP, etc). Thanks to everyone for all the input on this idea! Scott On 5/24/10 4:07 PM, Michael Colvin wrote: I would do both. :-) I would have redundant load balancers, at two different locations, that balance the loads between multiple servers at their respective locations. Then, use DNS (Also redundant at multiple locations) to round robin between the two locations. :-) Considering using VM for the DNS and Load Balancing portions, and perhaps the QMailToaster portion too, you could probably pull it off with one or two machines at each location. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services http://www.norcalisp.com/ www.norcalisp.com http://www.norcalisp.com/ _ From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott image001.gif
Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
I've never thought of buying servers off of ebay. I'll have to check into that. Thanks, Scott On 5/24/10 5:58 PM, Michael Colvin wrote: You can run VM on machines that are a couple years old, and can find them fairly cheap on Ebay or Craigslist. A couple of Dell 2650s, 2850s, or 1850s will run a couple of VMs with no problems. Depending on the amount of mail you are expecting and rack space availableity, you could probably do the load balancing, DNS and mail server all on a single Dell 2650 at each location, using VMWare ESXi, Zen, or pretty much most of the common VMs. The 2650s can be had pretty easily for around $200 - $300 w/drives. 2U of rack space at each location and youre done. If you need 1Us, go with the 1850s. Maybe $300 - $500 each, and only 1U. If its still too much, then, yea, go with just the DNS Round Robin option. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services www.norcalisp.com From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:32 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please Michael, As a small company, we haven't gotten into VM systems as of yet. I want to but the price of those machines is still a bit on the high side - especially with brand name servers (Dell, HP, etc). Thanks to everyone for all the input on this idea! Scott On 5/24/10 4:07 PM, Michael Colvin wrote: I would do both. J I would have redundant load balancers, at two different locations, that balance the loads between multiple servers at their respective locations. Then, use DNS (Also redundant at multiple locations) to round robin between the two locations. J Considering using VM for the DNS and Load Balancing portions, and perhaps the QMailToaster portion too, you could probably pull it off with one or two machines at each location. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services www.norcalisp.com From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott
