Hmmm... again I was under the impression that peering was the only option
(currently) for IMAIL. It will queue up messages when splitting the domain
between multiple boxes if one goes down but the down box must be restored
before those users can login again (thus not fault tolerance).
If there is something I am missing that WLBS can do for IMAIL I am very
interested in hearing it. The scenario that we are building involves WLBS
splitting the web calls (on a third party web interface) accessing IMAIL
(via IMAP) boxes peered on the backend. I am interested in hearing any other
methods as well...
_______________________________
Bryan Andrews
Site Administrator - CCI Web
404.843.7408
404.847.6335 fax
404.597.2316 cel
Cox Communications, Inc.
1400 Lake Hearn Drive
Atlanta, GA 30319
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 3:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] SQL 7.0
Hi,
In answer to both this and your subsequent message about SQL
7, we have
tried to do similar things to you. I have had good
experiences with the
external database with SQL 7.0, however as is often
mentioned on the list,
the dll supplied by Ipswitch does not check the state of the
connection once
open. You can either alter the source code or use an altered
version created
by one of the List members (sorry, I don't have the link to
hand).
Regarding clustering and WLBS, it is very important that any
web session
always goes to the same server for the entirety of the
session, this can be
done using the Virtual NIC properties setting the 'affinity'
to 'single'.
This means that all traffic will goto a certain member of
the cluster unless
that node dies.
An additional thought is that I am not sure how you are
sharing the domain
data between the two servers, is this using peering? I was
considering
storing all the data on a clustered share. This would work
as long as the
security permissions for the Imail services matched those
that could
reference the share. I was a bit worried about the
performance hit that this
would generate. Also it make the solution that bit more
complex (as if it
needed to be:)
Unfortunately IMail doesn't currently feature failover
cluster awareness
(not a major ommission at the price though).
Hope this helps and I would be interested in other
experiences in this area.
Steve
Steven Moore
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 6:23 PM
Subject: [IMail Forum] SQL 7.0
>
>
>
> Clustering vs Windows Load Balancing Service
>
> Hello,
>
> I have built an IMAIL system based on two IMAIL servers in
a load balanced
> environment.
>
> This arrangement seems to be causing some problems - as
far as I can work
out,
> WLBS balances individual requests from a user, rather than
the overall
user
> session. The result is that the user cannot use the
system!
>
> Has anyone tried using IMAIL server in a Clustered (or any
other high
> availability arrangement)?
>
> I gather this is not an officially supported option, but
does anyone have
any
> comments?
>
> Regards,
> Mark McSherry
>
>
>
> The information contained in this E-mail is confidential.
It may
> also be legally privileged. It is intended only for the
stated
> addressee(s) and access to it by any other person is
unauthorised.
> If you are not an addressee, you must not disclose, copy,
circulate
> or in any other way use or rely on the information
contained in this
> E-mail. Such unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you have
> received this E-mail in error, please delete it from your
system.
>
> If you require assistance, please contact our IS support
desk.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ( E-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
>
>
> Please visit
http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> to be removed from this list.
>
Please visit
http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
