Then, what's the problem of NFS on Linux? Do both the NFS server and
NFS client have problem? Or just either server or client?
I'm the questione raiser.
In fact, the idea of mail storage at the NFS server is because there
will be 2 mail receiver, with different values of MX so that the mail
system will be fault-tolerent and the incoming mail can be
centralized in one area so that the user can check mail thru
POP/IMAP/Webmail in either one mail server.
/-- qmail-ldap
/ POP, IMAP, Webmail === Internet
/
NFS /
maildir --
\
\
\
\-- qmail-ldap
POP, IMAP, Webmail === Internet
Any better suggestion?
Thanks a lot!!
---
HF Kwan
--- Henning Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 09:17:47AM +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Obviously no. In fact, I'd stay away from NFS alltogether if I
> could.
>
> I'd not. NFS on Linux is a hell, NFS on BSD is good.
>
> > >> hmm.. thats damn tough.. thinking that Yahoo runs more than 80
> mill subs
> > >> on NFS devices...:-)
> > For example, people who use SqWebMail have problems with NFS if
> their
> > clocks are not synchronized.
>
> you'll always have problems with unsyncronized clocks.
>
> > Also on some systems NFS implementations
> > are worse than on others. NFSv3 didn't work for me at all on
> Linux when
> > I tried to configure a shared FS.
>
> NFSv3 works great on OpenBSD.
>
> > >> RH 7.x has good NFS
> > >> implementations.. maybe worth a try..
>
> Surely not.
_______________________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com.hk address at http://mail.english.yahoo.com.hk
