Thanks, Currently I do have them on a different storage server :) The first 2010 exchage is a vm (client access), the second 2010 exchange is solely for storage. Currently I don't have a storage bottleneck (raid 10 does miracles with cheap Samsung spinpoint drives and an areca controller).
That's good that sogo has built in users, that's all I cared for anyways as far as using the active directory. I'd rather the sogo box be up if everything else windows suddenly dies. The advantage will be taking the storage server and throwing sogo on it by itself and removing the other exchange vm. I just created a sogo live iso, I'm not seeing it boot to an installer though... just drops me to the prompt after booting (wich is good at least). It's using the linux-generic kernel wich is also really good so it will boot on anything. I'm considering doing a tar backup inside the sogo vm, then restoring the backup to my fresh 10.04 box and overwrite the whole thing over the network. Does anyone else have any comments on outlook performance on huge 100GB+ mailboxes? And if there's any kind of limit as to the maximum size of a mailbox or database? -----Original Message----- From: Steve Ankeny [mailto:stev...@cinergymetro.net] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 4:38 PM To: users@sogo.nu Subject: Re: [SOGo] Problem First time installing sogo on Ubuntu 12.04 10VMs are a lot of nightly backup! We use VMware ESXi 5 on an HP Proliant (24GB RAM, AMD Quad-Core, 1.2T) with the following: Windows Server 2008R2 RDC (every user connects with RDP) Windows Server 2008R2 SQL (our accounting apps use MS-SQL) SOGo ZEG (starting as Ubuntu 11.04 now 12.04 and latest 'sogo) It sounds like you need to simplify your architecture (with only 10 accounts) (we have 8 accounts) Converting the ZEG to an ISO would allow you to install it with more disk space (to facilitate the shared accounts that require a large amount of disk space) Maybe that's where the savings should come! A large disk space requirement in a VM still requires a lot of resources for backup. It appears the size of the shared mailboxes precludes doing backups of snapshots. We are not using Active Directory or Samba (we want to use Samba4 domain functions) Right now, authentication is strictly by LDAP on the 'sogo' box, but each Windows machine requires accounts. Domain functions will simply allow us to synchronize account parameters, and we're not there yet. It may not matter whether you use VMware or VirtualBox, but if it can be installed natively via the ISO, that might work better for disk space needs. Maybe you can point the shared mailboxes to a separate storage server? It might make backup easier to do incremental backups of the mailboxes only. Or, just do a mirror on the separate storage server? We define 'dns' on our gateway and ip_phone devices (6-7 phones, 15-20 ip_addresses plus wlan) We have a separate storage server which we use for backup (Novaback on the Windows side) We've taken 'dns' and other network services away from the Windows boxes, but we define the printers via the Remote Desktop Connection (terminal services) on the Windows RDC Server. Everybody uses the same applications (with some lockdown on certain apps or files/folders) Our ZEG does 'ldap' authentication and mail services. We want to use it as a Samba domain later, but we will have to install Samba4 (as it was not originally in the ZEG) and configure user accounts. We're using a mix of Windows 7 and (two) Linux Mint clients. We have one PIII-386 Linux Thinstation that works better than the Windows clients! It's amazing. It sounds like the bottleneck in your environment are the large shared mail accounts. Move them to a separate storage server (point the mailboxes via 'webmin') and you should free up resources. Just a thought .... On 02/18/2013 03:20 PM, administrator wrote: > Since EXI/ESXI? Server didn't work with my own hardware, I built a massive > monster set of servers with a core i7 24+ GB ram each, WIN2K8 Hosts, running > Vmware server 2.0. However nightly windows backups of about 10 VM's really > takes a strain on vmware server's performance, so for brief periods machines > become undersponsive during that time. > > I was messing around with virtualbox 4.2 in headless mode so I can measure > how much better the performance is, plus I can assign an unlimited number of > cpu cores and it's free. ESX server is just linux with a hypervisor on top > anyways, nothing really native about it like they say it is, so I'm assuming > virtualbox will have similar performance on Ubuntu 12.04. The other benefit > will be the linux block level caching that windows doesn't have. > > The unusual requirement that is a bit too much for a VM is the fact that we > have jumbo shared inboxes (Shipping/Support etc...) where each one has about > 10 people using the same box simultaneously, and they do searches all the > time when the DB's are 200GB+ sometimes. Mail is just one of those things > that I want to completely isolate from my active directly and windows > infrastructure now. Since we only have about 10 actual email accounts > anyways. This way if the domain controller isn't up before the mail server, > there's no messed up authentication, etc... > > This is a problem I often have when it comes to windows, having too many > things relying on each other makes for headaches after power outages etc. > Windows updates being the worst. So the idea is one independent box, it's own > Open LDAP, it's own DNS (copying my internal zone from my windows dns) and > then deleting my existing mail servers. > > At some point, if I find Ubuntu is a stable active directory replacement, get > rid of each windows server one by one (if possible). For vm's at least the > hosts being Ubuntu also. > > -K -- users@sogo.nu https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists -- users@sogo.nu https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists
