Using Linux IPVS with direct return is an excellent way to load balance SMTP with the advantage that the source address is not lost. I believe this is the "one arm load balancer".

The other advantage of a load balancer is that the traffic level can be controlled per server and servers added/removed very quickly.

DNS based load balancing i have found to be unsatisfactory as it does not provide any such control. Additionally, with dns load balancing the individual servers are still "exposed" and can be targeted by IP address. Servers with a load balancer share the load of all traffic always.


In terms of storage though since you are using lmtp to send through to dovecot, its more of a dovecot question as the MTA isnt involved.

For large mail systems i have been involved with in the past, we were using netapp NFS appliances in HA. This was very satisfactory with the nfs settings tuned appropriately at both ends and lots of sharding.

I couldnt speak to freenas functionality, but on linux an active/passive nfs ha can be configured with drbd and related tools.

Dovecot also has a rados object storage plugin, so you could look at native ceph for storage.

The nice people at the Cyrus imap project have a nice document with lots of thoughts about mail storage https://www.cyrusimap.org/imap/concepts/deployment/storage.html

My 2c

Dean


On 2020-03-11 09:52, Robert Blayzor via Exim-users wrote:
On 3/10/20 6:32 PM, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
I'd go for the former, assuming you're not constrained by lack of IPs.
Load-balancers are just a pointless complexity addition.


I would agree to a point. For maybe up to (4) MX servers this might be
ok. But if you have many more than that, load balancer might be a
necessary evil.

I'm not a big fan of full proxy load balancers, especially with this
type of traffic. I would prefer a "one arm" load balancer, but
unfortunately I don't know of any FOSS load balancers. Everything seems
to be full proxy based. There is one that I know of; "pen", but that
seems to be not actively developed...

Using a one arm load balancer would negate needing any proxy protocol
nonsense to preserve the client IP addresses..

--
inoc.net!rblayzor
XMPP: rblayzor.AT.inoc.net
PGP:  https://pgp.inoc.net/rblayzor/

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/

Reply via email to