I understand what you are talking about regarding Qpopper not using NFS. The manual recommends against it. However, SAN sounds like an expensive option. It would seem that a splitter like the first guy was talking about would allow you to distribute the load over several older, slower, cheaper servers would be a reasonable solution. What would make SAN so much more advantageous that it would be worth spending the money on it?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Subscribers of Qpopper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:24 PM Subject: Re: Splitting Mail Across Hosts > Kim Scarborough ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > someone wrote about what to do when it gets too big for one > machine. > > > You're barking up the wrong tree. You should have the multiple servers > > share the partition with the spools through NFS, then change the hostname > > that your pop users have been using to be round-robin DNS with entries > > for each of the real machine names. That's what the larger ISPs do. > > Last time I checked, qpopper wasnt ready for NFS. > (Though I might be behind the times.) > > No, we dont use NFS, we use SAN. > the mail server doesnt matter as long as it does ldap. > (although qmail needs hacks, exim/postfix/sendmail dont) > you can even do it with kernel-of-the-week linux. > > once you have ldap, you can do whatever you want because you > no longer have any users, only mail. You no longer need human > intervention on individual servers because ldap is doing magic > for you. > > although out of the box qpopper doesnt speak ldap, its an easy hack > to add (remember to cache that query though or you'll make a second > request for the same data.) > > > I believe this discussion shows up every 3 or 4 months, you might > want to check the archive. > > P > ----* > been there, seen it, done it twice. > > > > > -- > END OF LINE. >
