On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Brian L. MacDonald wrote: > Hello all, > > Qpopper 4.0.4 server mode > Mail spool on NetApp filer via NFS >
reading mboxes over NFS is always a bad idea. really the only circumstance where you can use mail over nfs reliably is if you use Maildir delivery instead of mbox. -Tony .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-. Anthony J. Biacco Network Administrator/Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.asteroid-b612.org "Every day should be a good day to die" -DJM .-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-. > We have been having a problem that was a bear to track down. > > When we use server mode we are loosing mail. I know about the MDA and MUA > issues and we are only using MDA for these accounts. If we turn on full > debugging what we are seeing happen is that when a new message is delivered > to the mail spool while a qpopper session is active qpopper at times does > not realize that the mail spool has been appended and truncates the mail > spool without first copying any undeleted messages. > > If our troubleshooting is correct, the reason this is happening is that when > pop_updt.c does a fstat it is seeing the same filesize as when the session > started. > > The reason for the fstat not being updated from the time when the session > started is related to the NetApp. The NetApp caches writes to the > filesystem. When you perform a fstat on a file you are getting the stat of > the file that is on the physical disk which does not include any writes that > have occurred that have been cached but not written to disk. The max amount > of time that the write can be cached (and qpopper get an invalid fstat) is > 30 sec. (I think-trying to verify). > > Questions: > 1. Has anyone encountered this problem and if so how have you got around > it? > > 2. Has anyone attempted or thought of a way to modify qpopper to look at > the spool file rather than doing an fstat? > > 3. Has anyone found a way to configure the NetApp to have fstat include > cached writes? > > 4. Does anyone have any other thoughts as to how to correct this problem? > > TIA! > > Brian > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
