> NFS is not the way to scale large IMAP servers. IMAP servers are
> generally I/O bound, not CPU bound; and thus it makes no sense to have a
> dozen IMAP servers getting data from a monolithic NFS server.
>
> The other argument advanced in favor of NFS is reliability; if one IMAP
> server goes down users can access one of the others. The flaw in that
> argument is that you lose everything when the NFS monolith goes down.
Just out of curiosity, why is there *any* interest in getting NFS and
IMAP interoperate? They both seem to be different solutions to the same
problem, i.e. distributed access to storage, but IMAP is
application-specific.
If there's any reason to go with the one-size-fits-all solution of NFS,
why not give mail clients direct access to maildrops and folders?
On the other hand, if there's any reason *not* to do that, wouldn't that
also mean IMAP should *replace* NFS completely (for that application)?
Cheers,
- Joel
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
