On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 21:47 -0400, dove...@corwyn.net wrote: > At 04:21 PM 5/27/2009, you wrote: > >On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 14:02 -0400, dove...@corwyn.net wrote: > >yes, and use NAS not SAN > > Why NAS and not SAN? >
Because the two technologies differ and it permits you to run non clustering FS's, remember, SAN is block device, so it can only do one single write operation at a time, NAS, as many as you can throw at it, each has its own pros and cons, for mail NAS is perfect, for databases, SAN is better. > >you could also use DNS load balancing in a away that has 0 cache TTL on > >MX addresses, thats better than a software based LB if you cant afford a > >hardware LB > I'm not sure I understand that. The MX records have little to do with Your correct (too early in the morning when I sent that) but the same applies, if its for redundancy set 0 in DNS record for the hosts so if one fails, retrying has a better chance of getting the alive one, if you are that worried about it, get yourself a hardware solution, there are plenty around and cheap enough these days.