I appreciate everyones response on the matter. The expense is not an issue,
since we already are using an F% Big IP. I believe you are right about
needing a shared disk system for mailboxes.
John
> John,
>
> I looked at doing the same type of thing a while ago. Due to funding it
was
> scrapped, to do what I think you want to do. Let's just say this is not
the
> cheap solution.
>
> What you want to do is setup the front end mail servers in a cluster for 1
> IP address and hostname. Then get something like a Network Appliance for
> the back end. The network appliance is the storage device that will hold
> all of the email, users, logs, etc.... You then have 2 or more front end
> servers that share the same settings and files. Which are stored on the
> Network Appliance.
>
> If you are running SQL. You will probably want to setup an SQL cluster.
> (It's not cheap!) The cool thing about setting up a HA mail cluster like
> this is it will scale. If you run out of drive space. Just add more
Drive
> shelf's to the Network Appliance. The Network Appliance scales to over a
> Terabyte. If the mail servers start to get bogged down, add more servers.
> The Net App will also hold your SQL database if you so desire.
>
> There are a few other issues you need to look at and work out. One of
which
> is the registry settings. If you setup on W2k 1/2 of the battle for that
is
> done. That is one way to do it.
>
> The another way is to setup Imail in an LDAP cluster. But it does not do
> load balancing more like load sharing or parsing between servers for POP
> accounts. It is more like you have users A-E on Server 1 and users F-N on
> Server 2 and so on. Then the LDAP service finds the server where the POP
> account is stored.
>
> The last option is to have a hot standby server which you replicate all
> changes to. Clustering technology for High Availability is getting a lot
> better. Some HA cluster devices will real time image the servers for you
> off a master server.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of john miller
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 2:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [IMail Forum] F5 Big IP and Imail
>
>
> Hello All!
>
> has anyone use f5 Big IP to load balance multiple IMail Servers? The SMTP
> part is simple, it is the retrieval of email which I need to figure out. I
> like a way to load balance POP3 also, but how would I ensure that all the
> mail is retrieved, if running on different servers. The mail would be
stored
> on different severs, depending on which server retrieved the mail. Users
> would only retrieve the mail that was on server has.
>
> Thanks,
> John Miller
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Zohn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Daniel Donnelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:17 AM
> Subject: Re[2]: [IMail Forum] Redundant Send and Receive
>
>
> > There is a product called Double Take from NSI software that does this
> > type of thing well. I have not used it with imail, but have with SQL
> > without problems. It handles the file sync, and IP switchover, I am
> > not sure if it does the registry changes that would be needed.
> >
> > www.nsisw.com for more info.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
> >
> > DD> Hmmmm, this means one needs at least 2 SQL and 2 File servers, so
> there is
> > DD> redundancy (and cost!) in those.
> >
> > DD> The best method (modest cost and highest uptime) I can envision
would
> be to
> > DD> have 2 duplicate machines and a switch over mechanism that puts the
> second
> > DD> server online when the first fails. Just need to tools to perform
the
> > DD> switchover and the duplication of the files and data from the
primary
> > DD> machine to the secondary. This means only one 'backup' email machine
> and
> > DD> some software to keep them synchronized. Seems that this would be a
> less
> > DD> expensive and less hardware intensive technique than Rick's.
> >
> > DD> Rick's method might be better for a system that already uses SQL and
> maybe a
> > DD> larger system, so it does have a place in this world. But for a
> smaller
> > DD> email system and less backup costs, I think my way may have some
> advantages.
> >
> > DD> Using your existing S&F server, the total downtime would be the time
> it
> > DD> takes you to construct a new mail computer, install software and
data
> files.
> > DD> I've done this in as little as 2 hours (1:50 was in copying the
data!)
> for a
> > DD> modest sized server. If you already have the computer built and it
has
> > DD> copies of your \imail folders and files, the time would be reduced
to
> > DD> something like 10 minutes or so ( changing the IP/hostname,
installing
> IMail
> > DD> and copying the registry). If your boss can live with that, then you
> need
> > DD> just the hardware and daily backup of your user data to the backup
> email
> > DD> machine. The second machine could actually serve 2 purposes!
> >
> > DD> Daniel Donnelly
> > DD> ________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > DD> ----- Original Message -----
> > DD> From: "Rick Marei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > DD> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > DD> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 5:38 PM
> > DD> Subject: AW: [IMail Forum] Redundant Send and Receive
> >
> >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> to guarantee imail 100% uptime for a large number of users , here is
> how
> > DD> to
> > >> do it
> > >>
> > >> 2 imail servers authenticating against 1 clustered SQL Server and
mails
> > >> should be stored in 1 clustered file server to store emails, if this
is
> > DD> too
> > >> much for you, just use RAID 5 or 10 for storing the mailboxes and
also
> for
> > >> SQL
> > >>
> > >> the mail files could be moved easily to a new box and the forwarding
> > >> information are stored in plain text files in the mailboxes
> respectively
> > >>
> > >> for further details, please contact me
> > >>
> > >> Rick Marei
> > >> i factory.at Internet Services GmbH
> > >> Ferdinand Frey Weg 36
> > >> A-1140 Wien
> > >> Tel: +43 1 577 35 35
> > >> Mobil: +43 676 95 666 11
> > >>
> > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Im Auftrag von Yuri
> Levenfeld
> > >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. März 2001 14:21
> > >> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Betreff: Re: [IMail Forum] Redundant Send and Receive
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> clustering mail server
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: Stephen LaBuda
> > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 1:08 PM
> > >> Subject: [IMail Forum] Redundant Send and Receive
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Ok All, I am looking to implement some kind of redundancy for my
mail
> > >> service. Granted I already have a store and forward box but this
> doesn't
> > >> seem to meet the needs of the "boss" .. He wants 0 downtime or near
> zero
> > DD> as
> > >> possible for both sending and receiving mail for our service.
> > >>
> > >> Any suggestions on going about this?
> > >>
> > >> Thank You
> > >>
> > >> Stephen
> > >>
> >
> >
> > DD> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> > DD> to be removed from this list.
> >
> > DD> An Archive of this list is available at:
> > DD> http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.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/
> >
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> 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/
>
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/
