On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 20:16 -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 08:02:57PM -0700, Noel Butler wrote:
> > suggest, having just one master server, after all, dovecot and postfix > > just need to read, not alter/update/insert etc. > > True; but the pieces that are altering/updating/inserting the data that > postfix/dovecot need to read need redundancy as well :). > Yep, depends on your network design I suppose, I rather leave the front ends to be just that, with all interactions with master DB server and the NAS done via second interface on a dedicated private LAN so those nasty bored teenagers out there can't get near it :) > > yep thats correct because it has " gone away" but it still uses the > > second host immediately, thats just dovecot trying to re-establish its > > link with primary > > Based on my testing, it doesn't use the second host immediately, but > only sporadically, with most of the authentications failing. Sounds like you have bigger issues, maybe relating as to why the primary fails? > > > err postfix is not dovecot, you need to also add failover in postfix's > > sql lookup commands > > postfix relies on dovecot for authentication, this postfix error message > is the result of dovecot not successfully processing an authentication > request. postfix itself handles mysql failure well, it both load > balances queries across both servers and also continues to function when > one isn't available. > my bad, I did see that and it is as how I do it (i'm not all there at present, had the flu for a week grrrr) but I never had a situation where primary (local slave copy) has gone away unless I'm deliberately upgrading mysql ) when doing so (tested) it hits the master server (as in secondary host=) right away, no auth failures. Cheers
<<attachment: face-smile.png>>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
