On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.14.1525 +0200]: > > Or we can do it in two, with capacity to spare AND no downtime. > > I would definitely vote for two systems, but for high-availability, > not load-sharing. Unless we use a NAS or similar in the backend with > Maildirs to avoid locking problems. Then again, that's definitely > overkill...
A NAS in the back-end should not be expected to increase reliability. Every time you increase the complexity of the system you should expect to decrease reliability. KISS! -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
