>the data on the shared storage (mailboxes) is not shareable by
>the X Imail servers
That's not entirely accurate with regard to the scenario presented.
Each individual mailbox is only accessed by multiple processes if there is
multiple simultaneous requests to the same mailbox (ie more than one
pop,imap call to the same box at the same time). This rarely happens. In
the event that it does occur, Imail's locking method will control the
battle.
Example: [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s POP3 request is routed to server1 and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'s request is routed to server3. Both servers access the
same storage, but different mailboxes. No battle involved.
As far as SMTP processes accessing the "private" data, that is already
being done by multiple smtp calls handling incoming mail on existing single
server imail configs and Imail's locking methods handle that with little
problem.
As I said before, I agree with you on the network speed issues, but the
speed decrease can be measured in nanoseconds. If the transit time is
increased beyond the factor of the decrease on the network layer, then
transit time is indeed an issue.
Many large networks use this type of architecture, and it works.
With respect,
Chris
----------------------------------------------
Original Message
From: "Len Conrad"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Integration via CGI
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 23:06:22 +0100
>
>>network architecture. Once the OS caches the network connection, the
>>multiple 100mb fibre channels will speed right along.
>
>The media transit time is nearly never the issue in the total
>incremental delay of network vs local data access.
>
>The dominant factor is the OS overhead of tcp/ip or other protocol
>stack, network layers in the OS, none of which exists talking to a
>SCSI/PCI card with 128 megs of cache.
>
>If you have just one storage channel or medium on the server, then
>there will horrendously worse channel or storage media contention vs
>local access.
>
>The real architectural dumbness is that you have X Imail servers
>trying each trying to access its PRIVATE data on one server.
>
>ie, the data on the shared storage (mailboxes) is not shareable by
>the X Imail servers. What's the point of penalizing X Imail servers
>by making them slug it out for non-shareable data on shared storage
>while sucking it through network protocols and OS network layers?
>
>Len
>
>
>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
>to be removed from this list.
>
>An Archive of this list is available at:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
>
_____________________________________________
Free email with personality! Over 200 domains!
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
