At 04:04 PM Tuesday 4/20/99, Robert J. Adams wrote:
>Harald,
>
>If we are speaking about reliability.. what if the local machine croaks..
>then anything in the queue (of that local machine) is lost.. that isn't
>acceptable.
Correct. But that doesn't detract from Harold's point that you *will*
corrupt the queue if you run it over NFS and you will destroying the queue
if you have more than one qmail-send try and service that queue. qmail is
not designed to share the queue in this way.
If you want a reliable queue in the face of this sort of error, and you want
to use qmail, you *have* to put the queue on hot-swappable mirrored disks
for a start (you have considered disk failure as well I trust) and have a
standby system that you can hot-swap the disks into.
Regards.
>
>-j
>---
>Robert J. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.siscom.net
>Looking to outsource news? http://www.newshosting.com
>SISCOM Network Administration - President, SISCOM Inc.
>Phone: 937-222-8150 FAX: 937-222-8153
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 3:24 PM
>Subject: Re: Qmail Queue mounted via NFS?
>
>
>>+ "Robert J. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>| Is it possible to have two machines accessing the same queue via NFS?
>>
>>No! Your single copy of qmail-send assumes it is the only entity
>>making any changes in the queue (with the exception of qmail-queue,
>>which does however follow a specific protocol for inserting new
>>messages). Break that assumption, and you're breaking qmail.
>>
>>You should always have the queue on a local disk anyway, for
>>reliability as well as efficiency considerations.
>>
>>- Harald
>>
>
