RADOS is cephs native object storage,
Ceph's S3 layers on top of it.
On 2020-03-11 11:30, Robert Blayzor via Exim-users wrote:
On 3/10/20 7:21 PM, Dean Hamstead via Exim-users wrote:
Dovecot also has a rados object storage plugin, so you could look at
native ceph for storage.
Very
On 3/11/20 1:18 AM, Phil Pennock via Exim-users wrote:
> Caveat: the guarantee of SMTP is that you have responsibility once you
> accept the message, so think carefully about the resiliency of the spool
> directory for the servers in front of the NAS, and how you'd recover if
> a machine or VM
On 2020-03-10 at 17:11 -0400, Robert Blayzor via Exim-users wrote:
> Would this be a valid design and what are the caveats? What would a
> better design option be?
Caveat: the guarantee of SMTP is that you have responsibility once you
accept the message, so think carefully about the resiliency of
On 3/10/20 7:21 PM, Dean Hamstead via Exim-users wrote:
> Dovecot also has a rados object storage plugin, so you could look at
> native ceph for storage.
Very interesting. Minio runs natively on FreeNAS for S3 compatible
object storage. However it looks like the S3 object storage plugins are
not
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
On 10/03/2020 22:52, Robert Blayzor via Exim-users wrote:
> Using a one arm load balancer would negate needing any proxy protocol
> nonsense to preserve the client IP addresses..
If you must, exim talks proxy-protocol natively:
http://exim.org/exim-html-current/doc/html/spec_html/ch-proxies.html
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
On 10/03/2020 22:17, Robert Blayzor via Exim-users wrote:
> Multiple MX's would be for both redundancy and load balancing. I
> would either just list them as equal weight MX's or put them behind
> HAProxy (or some other load balancer)
I'd go for the former, assuming you're not constrained by
On 3/10/20 5:45 PM, Jeremy Harris via Exim-users wrote:
> I assume you said "multiple" MXs so that you can run system-upgrades
> and planned-maint on them separately, without taking a mail-acceptance
> outage. I'd suggest, given you're wanting that service level, you
> might also want
On 10/03/2020 21:11, Robert Blayzor via Exim-users wrote:
> I'm looking to setup several Exim MX VM servers to deliver mail to
> mailbox storage in Maildir++ on FreeNAS.
>
> Will be using Dovecot for the IMAP/POP and LMTP delivery. My main goal
> is to keep the MX's accepting mail should for
I'm looking to setup several Exim MX VM servers to deliver mail to
mailbox storage in Maildir++ on FreeNAS.
Will be using Dovecot for the IMAP/POP and LMTP delivery. My main goal
is to keep the MX's accepting mail should for whatever reason the NAS
appliance go offline.
That would mean that
11 matches
Mail list logo
