On Apr 6, 2011, at 1:09 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
>> People tend to take advantage of the resources they have; if you
>> have an EMC or NetApp filer handy, it's might well be reasonable
>> to use it ...
>
> s/reasonable/tempting/
>
> "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> People tend to take advantage of the resources they have; if you
> have an EMC or NetApp filer handy, it's might well be reasonable
> to use it ...
s/reasonable/tempting/
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem tends to
resemble a nail."
___
On Apr 5, 2011, at 1:01 AM, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> Chuck Swiger wrote:
>
>> It's fairly common to scale up a mail infrastructure from one box
>> handling both SMTP and IMAP (or POP) to a SMTP-only box writing to
>> NFS-mounted user mailboxes, and have one or more dedicated reader
>> boxes
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> It's fairly common to scale up a mail infrastructure from one box
> handling both SMTP and IMAP (or POP) to a SMTP-only box writing to
> NFS-mounted user mailboxes, and have one or more dedicated reader
> boxes which only run IMAP/POP daemons which access that same NFS
> fil
On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 06:44:21PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> If you can, anyway-- but maildir is becoming more commonly used with the
> growing popularity of Cyrus and Dovecot compared with UWash IMAP (which did
> mbox and mbx).
Avoid UWash IMAP like the plague is my suggestion. It has locki
Hi, Rick--
On Apr 4, 2011, at 5:24 PM, Rick Macklem wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> Be careful; multiple access from different processes even on a single
>> host can still run into locking issues against NFS filesystems, or
>> data corruption if locking isn't avai
> On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > 'k, based on someone else's recommendation, I add 'nolockd' to the
> > mount entry,a nd postfix now appears to work ... since I can safely
> > guarantee that only the one host will have access to these files,
> > that doesn't pose a porblem
Thank you, this answers things perfectly ...
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Okay, next question ... if lockd is running, should fcntl locks work? My read
of the NFS_README.html above indicates to me that they should ... but if t
On Apr 4, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Okay, next question ... if lockd is running, should fcntl locks work? My
> read of the NFS_README.html above indicates to me that they should ... but if
> that is the case, then it comes back to why doesn't it?
If rpc.lockd was bug-free and
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
OK-- Cyrus IMAP uses a variant of maildir, so you're relatively safe even if
locking is not available.
So, just to get this clear ...
If I were to boot a diskless station using an NFS backend, then
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 'k, based on someone else's recommendation, I add 'nolockd' to the mount
> entry,a nd postfix now appears to work ... since I can safely guarantee that
> only the one host will have access to these files, that doesn't pose a
> porblem for me
On Apr 4, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> OK-- Cyrus IMAP uses a variant of maildir, so you're relatively safe even if
>> locking is not available.
>
> So, just to get this clear ...
>
> If I were to boot a diskless station using an NFS backend, then that instance
> would be prone
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Be careful; multiple access from different processes even on a single host can
still run into locking issues against NFS filesystems, or data corruption if
locking isn't available. You're most at ris
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> Be careful; multiple access from different processes even on a single host
>> can still run into locking issues against NFS filesystems, or data
>> corruption if locking isn't available. You're most at risk with local
>> delivery to an mbo
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Apr 4, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
'k, based on someone else's recommendation, I add 'nolockd' to the mount
entry,a nd postfix now appears to work ... since I can safely guarantee that
only the one host will have access to these files,
'k, based on someone else's recommendation, I add 'nolockd' to the mount
entry,a nd postfix now appears to work ... since I can safely guarantee
that only the one host will have access to these files, that doesn't pose
a porblem for me, but still find it a weird issue all things considered :(
I'm trying to simulate a diskless boot of FreeBSD, as am looking at moving
to a more 'thin client' environment, using a Netapp as a filer to provide
the file systems for FreeBSD front ends ...
To simulate this, I have two servers, both running 7-STABLE, one acting as
the nfs server (ie. simu
17 matches
Mail list logo
