[qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott
RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
I would do both. :-) I would have redundant load balancers, at two different locations, that balance the loads between multiple servers at their respective locations. Then, use DNS (Also redundant at multiple locations) to round robin between the two locations. :-) Considering using VM for the DNS and Load Balancing portions, and perhaps the QMailToaster portion too, you could probably pull it off with one or two machines at each location. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services http://www.norcalisp.com/ www.norcalisp.com http://www.norcalisp.com/ _ From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott image001.gif
RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
I believe the dns load balancing is the most effective due to the nature of cost and simplicity. We have several F5 BigIP 3800 and there really pricy machines , but with there Global Load Balancing service it makes our life easy. From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott
Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
Michael, As a small company, we haven't gotten into VM systems as of yet. I want to but the price of those machines is still a bit on the high side - especially with brand name servers (Dell, HP, etc). Thanks to everyone for all the input on this idea! Scott On 5/24/10 4:07 PM, Michael Colvin wrote: I would do both. J I would have redundant load balancers, at two different locations, that balance the loads between multiple servers at their respective locations. Then, use DNS (Also redundant at multiple locations) to round robin between the two locations. J Considering using VM for the DNS and Load Balancing portions, and perhaps the QMailToaster portion too, you could probably pull it off with one or two machines at each location. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services www.norcalisp.com From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott
RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
I should have added, we are using a variation of: http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/index.html That link should get you going. No cost, other than a simple, no frills server, depending on the load. Works great. Do a Google for Linux load balancing and you should find all kinds of articles. Or, you could go with already built stuff like Foundry's.But, if you're looking to scale affordably, do the LVM stuff. Works like a charm. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services http://www.norcalisp.com/ www.norcalisp.com http://www.norcalisp.com/ _ From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott image001.gif
RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
You can run VM on machines that are a couple years old, and can find them fairly cheap on Ebay or Craigslist. A couple of Dell 2650's, 2850's, or 1850's will run a couple of VM's with no problems. Depending on the amount of mail you are expecting and rack space availableity, you could probably do the load balancing, DNS and mail server all on a single Dell 2650 at each location, using VMWare ESXi, Zen, or pretty much most of the common VM's. The 2650's can be had pretty easily for around $200 - $300 w/drives. 2U of rack space at each location and you're done. If you need 1U's, go with the 1850's. Maybe $300 - $500 each, and only 1U. If it's still too much, then, yea, go with just the DNS Round Robin option. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services http://www.norcalisp.com/ www.norcalisp.com http://www.norcalisp.com/ _ From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:32 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please Michael, As a small company, we haven't gotten into VM systems as of yet. I want to but the price of those machines is still a bit on the high side - especially with brand name servers (Dell, HP, etc). Thanks to everyone for all the input on this idea! Scott On 5/24/10 4:07 PM, Michael Colvin wrote: I would do both. :-) I would have redundant load balancers, at two different locations, that balance the loads between multiple servers at their respective locations. Then, use DNS (Also redundant at multiple locations) to round robin between the two locations. :-) Considering using VM for the DNS and Load Balancing portions, and perhaps the QMailToaster portion too, you could probably pull it off with one or two machines at each location. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services http://www.norcalisp.com/ www.norcalisp.com http://www.norcalisp.com/ _ From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott image001.gif
[qmailtoaster] Re: Opinions Please
Scott Hughes wrote: I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott Here is a recent thread from my local LUG you might find informative: http://www.mail-archive.com/plug-disc...@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/msg18320.html -- -Eric 'shubes' - Qmailtoaster is sponsored by Vickers Consulting Group (www.vickersconsulting.com) Vickers Consulting Group offers Qmailtoaster support and installations. If you need professional help with your setup, contact them today! - Please visit qmailtoaster.com for the latest news, updates, and packages. To unsubscribe, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-unsubscr...@qmailtoaster.com For additional commands, e-mail: qmailtoaster-list-h...@qmailtoaster.com
Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please
I've never thought of buying servers off of ebay. I'll have to check into that. Thanks, Scott On 5/24/10 5:58 PM, Michael Colvin wrote: You can run VM on machines that are a couple years old, and can find them fairly cheap on Ebay or Craigslist. A couple of Dell 2650s, 2850s, or 1850s will run a couple of VMs with no problems. Depending on the amount of mail you are expecting and rack space availableity, you could probably do the load balancing, DNS and mail server all on a single Dell 2650 at each location, using VMWare ESXi, Zen, or pretty much most of the common VMs. The 2650s can be had pretty easily for around $200 - $300 w/drives. 2U of rack space at each location and youre done. If you need 1Us, go with the 1850s. Maybe $300 - $500 each, and only 1U. If its still too much, then, yea, go with just the DNS Round Robin option. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services www.norcalisp.com From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:32 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please Michael, As a small company, we haven't gotten into VM systems as of yet. I want to but the price of those machines is still a bit on the high side - especially with brand name servers (Dell, HP, etc). Thanks to everyone for all the input on this idea! Scott On 5/24/10 4:07 PM, Michael Colvin wrote: I would do both. J I would have redundant load balancers, at two different locations, that balance the loads between multiple servers at their respective locations. Then, use DNS (Also redundant at multiple locations) to round robin between the two locations. J Considering using VM for the DNS and Load Balancing portions, and perhaps the QMailToaster portion too, you could probably pull it off with one or two machines at each location. Michael J. Colvin NorCal Internet Services www.norcalisp.com From: Scott Hughes [mailto:sonicscott9...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:43 PM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please I am considering setting up a second QMT server using Jake's replicated server tutorial. These servers will be in two different cities for maximum redundancy. If I remember correctly, Jake mentioned setting up DNS round robin to balance the two QMT servers. My question is this: Is DNS better for load balancing, or would it be better to utilize a load balancing program like 'balance' (http://www.inlab.de/balance.html) ? Or does it really make a difference for this application. I would be balancing IMAP (993) / SMTP (25) / POP3 (110). Thanks, Scott
