Re: postfix behind load balancers
Brian Evans - Postfix List schrieb: > Robert Schetterer wrote: >> Hi @ll, >> has anbody experience with >> postfix behind load balancers >> im planning to test >> ha-proxy >> pen >> balance(ng) on ubuntu hardy in a HA-Cluster >> in front of postfix servers >> > > The pro's and con's of load balancing has been discussed many times > here. Search the archives for details. > > A different, and possibly better, way to handle the load of mail is a > simple round-robin DNS or multiple MX records of the same priority. > > A load balance setup can, and probably will, change the TCP source. > This is important in the detection of mynetworks as well as the > requirement for the XFORWARD command. Otherwise, Postifx will not know > the true origination and always log the load balancer as the source. > > A poor load balance setup can possibly allow open relay. > > Brian Hi Brian, youre right but all the stuff you mentioned should be avoided therfor i had asked for practice experience with LB in running setups -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer Germany/Munich/Bavaria
Re: postfix behind load balancers
On Friday 31 October 2008 13:22:27 Brian Evans - Postfix List wrote: > Robert Schetterer wrote: > > Hi @ll, > > has anbody experience with > > postfix behind load balancers > > im planning to test > > ha-proxy > > pen > > balance(ng) on ubuntu hardy in a HA-Cluster > > in front of postfix servers > > The pro's and con's of load balancing has been discussed many times > here. Search the archives for details. > > A different, and possibly better, way to handle the load of mail is a > simple round-robin DNS or multiple MX records of the same priority. > > A load balance setup can, and probably will, change the TCP source. > This is important in the detection of mynetworks as well as the > requirement for the XFORWARD command. Otherwise, Postifx will not know > the true origination and always log the load balancer as the source. Direct-Server-Return load balancing would not suffer from this problem, but it's about as good as multiple MX's, and a lot more complicated to setup. We use multiple MX's here to good effect. Mark. -- Mark Watts BSc RHCE MBCS Senior Systems Engineer QinetiQ Applied Technologies GPG Key: http://www.linux-corner.info/mwatts.gpg signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: postfix behind load balancers
Robert Schetterer wrote: > Hi @ll, > has anbody experience with > postfix behind load balancers > im planning to test > ha-proxy > pen > balance(ng) on ubuntu hardy in a HA-Cluster > in front of postfix servers > The pro's and con's of load balancing has been discussed many times here. Search the archives for details. A different, and possibly better, way to handle the load of mail is a simple round-robin DNS or multiple MX records of the same priority. A load balance setup can, and probably will, change the TCP source. This is important in the detection of mynetworks as well as the requirement for the XFORWARD command. Otherwise, Postifx will not know the true origination and always log the load balancer as the source. A poor load balance setup can possibly allow open relay. Brian
postfix behind load balancers
Hi @ll, has anbody experience with postfix behind load balancers im planning to test ha-proxy pen balance(ng) on ubuntu hardy in a HA-Cluster in front of postfix servers -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer Germany/Munich/Bavaria
