Hi I think we are going to adopt this approach: 2 different mail/spool repositories and same inbox repository with a simple db-based pop3 lock. Ciao Marcello
> -----Messaggio originale----- > Da: Stefano Bagnara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Inviato: sabato 10 marzo 2007 17.42 > A: James Users List > Oggetto: Re: two or more instances of James with one database backend > > You cannot share mail/spool repositories between james instances. > They uses application locking, so they will fail to lock and that could > lead to multiple processing of the same message and various errors. > > I replied many times on this argument. An attempt to support distributed > locking has been done (james-ha project on sourceforge), but I suggest > to use the primary/secondary MX solution that is part of the SMTP > specification: 1 server is primary and handle mails, the second server > is the secondary and simply keeps mails in the spool (outgoing) waiting > for the first server to come back to life. > > Stefano > > Artur Satarov ha scritto: > > Hi all. > > Does anybody use two or more instances of James with one database > > backend? I was trying to create test configuration: > > - Balance on linux box > > Balance -H 25 <james_server_1> <james_server_2> % > > Balance -H 110 <james_server_1> <james_server_2> % > > - two james instances (james_server_1, james_server_2) with same > > configurations. > > - PostgreSql database > > It works fine at first glance. But correct work with great load and > > concurrent db access is uncertain for me. Is anybody can list to me > > possible problems with this configuration? > > > > Thanks for advice. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
