Warning, responding to two folks at once.... On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 03:15:06PM -0400, Mick Szucs wrote: > On June 29, 2004 03:07 pm, Sylvain Robitaille wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Michael Parker wrote: > > > Why not just setup a master server and have all your mail servers talk > > > to it? > > > > Single point of failure: what happens to the mail when the database goes > > down? If you have one database server for this type of thing, you may > > as well have a single MX host. >
I never said it had to be a single server, nothing wrong with talking to a master db server with a slave in reserve as a hotbackup. If it goes down you aren't going to lose mail, it just won't be scanned. The current 3.0 design for Bayes SQL is a 90% design, but gives you plenty of rope to handle the other 10% (see below). > > If there were a way to direct writes to the master and reads from the local > slave copy, that would be ideal - but I think that defies the way things like > to work. > > I'll be playing with 3.0 when it happens and will report back if I come up > with anything that works. > Yes, it is possible, with code, perldoc Mail::SpamAssassin::BayesStore to get the API for the storage code. Multi-Master setups are also possible with a little code and time. Michael
