om]
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 Comp
or 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.
> >>
> &g
l 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)
ests) 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
rom: 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
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).
ound 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]
Opini
<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 ye
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
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 Co
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,
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 fo
12 matches
Mail list logo
