On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 14:02 -0400, dove...@corwyn.net wrote: > At 01:49 PM 5/27/2009, Rick Romero wrote: > > >>But what it sounds like you're saying is that there's no good way to > >>run dovecot so that if the single server it's on fails I can keep > >>service availability? > > > >If you have 2 dovecot servers with your mailboxes stored on a SAN > >(over NFS), you can front your 2 dovecot machines with a load balancer > >like UltraMonkey (LHA/Heartbeat). > > Would this mean I would configure two identical dovecot systems, and > point them both at the same SAN space? (so instead of having a > "clustered" environment both instances of dovecot are just using > shared filespace?) Isn't there a risk there of both dovecot > instances writing a file/email with the same filename?
If you don't necessarily need load-balancing to multiple servers, it should be faster and more reliable to use active/passive and some (automated) failover between them. If you use active/active servers, you either need some clustered filesystem (not that efficient) or NFS (kind of sucks too).
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
