I really think you'd be wise to ask this sort of question in a forum
related to IIS. I really hate to encourage too much deviation, but the
answer to your question is yes.
You already have such a tool, it's called iissync.exe. It's usually located
in \winnt\system32\inetsrv
I hope this helps,
Jonathan
At 10:52 PM 5/2/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi there,
>
>This question is not related to Imail but I'd like to thank you first. I
>am using WLBS for IIS 4.0 now and just wondering is there a tool outthere
>to do content replication between IIS servers, including the IIS Metabase.
>
>thanks,
>
>Dan
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: "Sanford Whiteman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 23:25:53 -0400
>
> >You did not read my post -- perhaps you skimmed it. There is no "true"
> load balancing -- this is a figment of your imagination. Load balancing
> -- which is a concept only, not a trademark! -- is based on (a)
> distribution or replication of content and (b) content-sensitive or
> utilization-sensitive redirection. I have used several market-leading
> hardware and software load balancers, and there are none that truly
> "poke" POP3 performance at the application layer (they will poke for
> HTTP, FTP, et al. responsiveness) as part of their LB algorithm. You
> would thus be reduced to "best-guess" based on server utilization or
> basic round-robining. Thus, the environment I described is the best way
> to use commercial LB front ends against an Imail server farm. Yes, you
> *can* have just one exposed IP address -- this is the default behavior
> with HydraWEB, Radware, etc.
> >
> >In addition, you are dead wrong about WLBS' resource footprint. It is
> not resource-intensive and performs extremely well at load-balancing
> replicated content.
> >
> >S.
> >
> >P.S. If you don't like my answer, give a better one. Your attack was
> OT, as my response was to Dean Zerbe's query and was fully appropriate to
> the question.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Koontz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 8:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] IMAIL 6.03 How do I Config to load
> balance behind a Cisco 6509
> >
> >
> > I am sorry, but this does not sound at all like "Load Balancing".
> Why should you have to "Segment" your user base? In a true Load
> Balancing server scheme, multiple servers would answer to the same IP
> Address - based on server load, and all would use the same exact user
> base on an external device available to each server. It should be a 100%
> "automated" system - NOT partially manual. All currently available
> servers play....equally! Not just the which outgoing SMTP servers are
> active game, which does nothing for POP, HTTP, IMAP or other "user" access.
> >
> > If you are counting on WLBS, you need to do some serious research
> --- it is a clustering solution at best, with tremendous overhead. TRUE
> load balancing can be handled easily at the router level or with software
> such as Resonate's Central Command.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Sanford Whiteman
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 6:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] IMAIL 6.03 How do I Config to load
> balance behind a Cisco 6509
> >
> >
> > Local SMTP/POP3-wise, the Imail "Peer Server" function will help
> you accomplish this. You set your Imail servers up to "overflow" to each
> other, after segmenting your user base across the servers (you can use a
> round-robin algorithm when creating the SQL statement that creates
> accounts). You can even share the same SQL database if you want -- just
> use different tables. This way, if a load-balanced request comes in for
> a given POP3 account that isn't actually hosted on the destination
> server, it will search the cluster and redirect the traffic. Note that
> the TCP/IP traffic is still routed through the destination server (it
> doesn't actually get redirected, HTTP-style), but you save disk I/O and
> actual SMTP processing.
> >
> > Remote SMTP-wise, you don't really need to do anything except
> point clients to the cluster address. You may want to give each box the
> same primary hostname to avoid Reverse DNS issues.
> >
> > Overall, it's partially manual and partially automated, but it
> works.
> >
> > Sandy
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zerbe, Dean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 6:14 PM
> > Subject: [IMail Forum] IMAIL 6.03 How do I Config to load
> balance behind a Cisco 6509
> >
> >
> > My company is running a Cisco powered network. with 2 Cisco
> GSR's those are connected to 2 6509 switches. the Cisco 6509 has the
> ability to do load balance. the hardware I am using allows 2 Ethernet
> ports to be connected for each server to theoretically do 200mbps full
> duplex. this network is fully fault tolerant
> >
> > Now the Question....
> >
> > How should I configure IMAIL or should I bother?
> >
> >
> > My possible concept.
> >
> >
> > run 4 or more front end IMAIL servers load balanced from the
> Cisco 6509. have those servers sync users by using a SQL 7.0
> database. have the directory structure point to a
> UNC \\bigdiskserver\domainxyz.
> >
> >
> > then presto it all crashes because of open file issues? I
> don't know any ideas would help? even other products you tell me
> >
> > the SQL server and location for the file are in a Microsoft
> cluster server.
> >
> > this is expected to hold 500,000 + accounts.
> >
> >
> >Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> >to be removed from this list.
> >
>
>--
>-------------------------
>Dan Nguyen
>-------------------------
>--
>
>_____________________________________________________
>
>Build Your Biz, E-Commerce, WebSite and more online.
>Visit http://www.hotbiz.com
>
>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
>to be removed from this list.
________________________________
You want it? We've got it!
http://home.paperwork.com
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
