On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 00:23 -0400, Mordechai T. Abzug wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 02:02:27PM -0400, Geo Carncross wrote:
>
> > Won't work. As much as it seems like this would be a good idea (and
> > believe me: about half a dozen people on this list have had it, so
> > it certainly is a good
On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 17:55 -0400, Mordechai T. Abzug wrote:
> Following up to myself with clarifications and corrections:
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 12:23:24AM -0400, Mordechai T. Abzug wrote:
>
> > (S5) Each time an email arrives at a server (via SMTP or IMAP, not via
> > replication), th
I realize there's a lot of people who can't "see it", so I've isolated
an example program that demonstrates the problem.
The attached (short) C program attempts to run a counter. You can modify
two portions: the first is where you set an initial counter, and the
second is how the counter is transf
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:46:50AM -0400, Geo Carncross wrote:
> > (A2) Users should have an affinity to a particular server, and should
> > only switch/be switched to another server in the event of a
> > failure.
>
> Incorrect. Many people want load-balancing. High-availability access
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 01:19:47PM -0400, Mordechai T. Abzug wrote:
> > Won't work. A client that performs the following operations will lose
> > email:
> >
> > * Client (C) connects to host (A) sees uidvalidity mismatch; gets 1,2,4
> > * C connects to host (B) sees exists "4", tries to fetch uid
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:54:33AM -0400, Geo Carncross wrote:
> > Clarification: the new UID must be greater than any value currently
> > KNOWN LOCALLY in high_saved. Because of race conditions or network
> > outages, the local high_saved table might be out-of-date with respect
> > to other serv
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:43:17AM -0700, Christian G. Warden wrote:
> > The design actually ensures, in this exact scenario, that the client
> > does see the mail. What happens is that when B creates email UID 3, B
> > sends A a message saying "I made an email with UID 3". When A
> > receives t
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 14:18 -0400, Mordechai T. Abzug wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 10:43:17AM -0700, Christian G. Warden wrote:
>
> > > The design actually ensures, in this exact scenario, that the client
> > > does see the mail. What happens is that when B creates email UID 3, B
> > > sends
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 02:27:24PM -0400, Geo Carncross wrote:
> If you have per-user host affinities that are _guaranteed_ then
> you've gotten load-balancing (again) and not
> high-availability. You've just moved the load-balancing onto an
> extra point of failure.
No, you have high availabilit
