-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
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).
...@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
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
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
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:
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
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
[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
.
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
