On 05/06/2023 20:52, Eirik Rye wrote:
On 05/06/2023 11:14, Noel Butler via dovecot wrote:
[...]
Both of you should grow up and keep this argument outside the mailing
list.
yes mum___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe
On 05/06/2023 11:14, Noel Butler via dovecot wrote:
[...]
Both of you should grow up and keep this argument outside the mailing list.
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send an email to dovecot-le...@dovecot.org
On 23/05/2023 17:23, Marc wrote:
there is a reason these things cost more than you'll earn in a year.
second post in a row showing your lack of knowledge in actual networks,
before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself, how about getting
some experience in the real world or spending some
>
>
> On EMC Unity there is a NAS server parameter that can be
> changed to
>
>
> Maybe a bit to much of topic, but why EMC and not something like
> ceph? You rarely see any interesting comparisons on line (except of
> course the stupid ones listing features)
>
>
>
On 22/05/2023 22:36, Marc wrote:
On EMC Unity there is a NAS server parameter that can be changed to
Maybe a bit to much of topic, but why EMC and not something like ceph?
You rarely see any interesting comparisons on line (except of course
the stupid ones listing features)
there is a
On 22/05/2023 22:33, Marc wrote:
used director. real (hardware) load balancers are actually smart and
exponentially more reliable and robust than server based :)
because there runs no software on it, right
this statement here, shows what a clueless newbie you are
--
Regards,
Noel
>
> On EMC Unity there is a NAS server parameter that can be changed to
Maybe a bit to much of topic, but why EMC and not something like ceph? You
rarely see any interesting comparisons on line (except of course the stupid
ones listing features)
> used director. real (hardware) load balancers are actually smart and
> exponentially more reliable and robust than server based :)
>
because there runs no software on it, right
___
dovecot mailing list -- dovecot@dovecot.org
To unsubscribe send
Nice to know, similar option doesn't exist on VNX's though
On 22/05/2023 17:30, Adrian M wrote:
On EMC Unity there is a NAS server parameter that can be changed to
disable NFSv4 delegations using the following command,
svc_nas -param -facility nfsv4 -modify
delegationsEnabled -value 0
On
On EMC Unity there is a NAS server parameter that can be changed to disable
NFSv4 delegations using the following command,
svc_nas -param -facility nfsv4 -modify delegationsEnabled
-value 0
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 7:34 AM Noel Butler wrote:
>
> NFSv4, a dozen front ends to an EMC backend,
I ran nfs3 with dovecot using dotlock and then nlm lock since 2008,
never had an issue, using maildir.
I moved to director arouns 2015, and then to mdbox to fix several
performance issues.
I have moved to nfs4 about 2years ago, but still using director and mdbox.
For me to move without
On 20/05/2023 01:23, Adrian Minta wrote:
Hi Pierre,
when we tested NFSv4 couple of years ago, we found out that NFSv4 has
a caching feature witch delegate file caching to a specific client.
This was a problem with same share mounted on multiple servers. The
contention will explode the load
Thanks Tom. Are you refering to a proxy software in particular (e.g. Dovecot
proxy, Nginx, ...)? Do you mean having a single proxy in front of all the
backends?
We'd prefer to avoid that if possible, as that makes the proxy a single point
of failure. But it seems to be the recommended way to
Thanks for the input!
Great to know that you got clusters working with at least some version of NFS
without using Director. Were you guys using NLM (Network Lock Manager),
dotlock, or something else, to have file locking capabilities with NFSv3?
The delegation feature of NFSv4 mentioned by
> Hi Dovecot community,
>
> We're looking at running multiple Dovecot backend servers in parallel, all
> using the same shared NFSv4.1 mount to store mailboxes in the maildir
> format.
>
Just my experience, you can use multi-IMAP proxy in front of the real IMAP
server which has powerful
+1 NFSv3 has always been more stable in our testing..
Will have to put it on the road map to run full testing again, but you
know the old adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.. ;)
On 2023-05-19 08:23, Adrian Minta wrote:
Hi Pierre,
when we tested NFSv4 couple of years ago, we found out
Hi Pierre,
when we tested NFSv4 couple of years ago, we found out that NFSv4 has a
caching feature witch delegate file caching to a specific client. This
was a problem with same share mounted on multiple servers. The
contention will explode the load on the clients due to I/O waits and in
Hi Dovecot community,
We're looking at running multiple Dovecot backend servers in parallel, all
using the same shared NFSv4.1 mount to store mailboxes in the maildir format.
We've read in multiple places that running multiple backends with a shared NFS
can result in issues like index files
18 matches
Mail list logo
