On 5.3.2012, at 19.25, Jacek Osiecki wrote: >>> However, if we have everything redundant, why not have the same with SMTP >>> and POP3/IMAP? But - won't anything fail if two (or more) dovecots are >>> accessing the same disk space, both for IMAP/POP3 and LDA/LMTP? > >> If both servers randomly access users' mails, with NFS you'll have some >> trouble, with OCFS2 probably less trouble. But in both cases you'll have >> better performance and no problems if you use Dovecot director in both >> servers (install both director and backend to both servers). >> http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Director > > Thanks, I'll probably give it a try. On the other hand, it would be nice to > have a possibility to allow multiple dovecot instances to access mail spool > (at cost of handling some extra file/directory locks) - a bit slower, but > safe...
You can safely do that with director. Also the problem with NFS isn't locks, but caching. > Another question: as I assume, when you wrote about troubles it was applying > to IMAP. How about LMTP/LDA? Can anything bad happen when one mailbox is > being filled by LMTP/LDA from more than one server)? Yes, because they're still updating Dovecot index files. You could disable LMTP/LDA index updates, but I'm still not sure if it works 100% correctly (because dovecot-uidlist is appended to).