Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please

2010-05-31 Thread South Computers
-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please To clarify, ns1 would *not* failover to ns2. Both ns1 ns2 would failover to a second set of ns1 ns2's (duplicate but with different records). South Computers wrote: Thanks, Yes, that is always the problem with dns failover

Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please

2010-05-30 Thread South Computers
That looks interesting. Been thinking about this myself a lot lately (failover, not load balancing, especially for http). Being in hurricane alley I think about this this time every year. Not too worried about mail, as I just use smtp routes to point everything back to primary mail server(s).

RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please

2010-05-30 Thread Michael J. Colvin
...@southcomputers.com] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:17 AM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please That looks interesting. Been thinking about this myself a lot lately (failover, not load balancing, especially for http). Being in hurricane alley I think

Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please

2010-05-30 Thread South Computers
what you were trying to say though.. Mike -Original Message- From: South Computers [mailto:i...@southcomputers.com] Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 11:17 AM To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please That looks interesting. Been thinking about

RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please

2010-05-24 Thread Michael Colvin
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

RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please

2010-05-24 Thread Domnick Eger
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:

Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please

2010-05-24 Thread Scott Hughes
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

RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please

2010-05-24 Thread Michael Colvin
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

RE: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please

2010-05-24 Thread Michael Colvin
[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

Re: [qmailtoaster] Opinions Please

2010-05-24 Thread Scott Hughes
. 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