We have 4 front end servers running postfix. These servers call and AV process on two additional AV servers behind the wall. Then these servers call spamd on two additional servers behind the wall. Those two servers have a simple MySQL cluster (running Linux-HA and DRBD).
In all we have 8 boxes that handle all of our email for our clients. We are generating about 170k emails per day coming into the network. We recently upgrade all of the hardware to Dell Dimension 4700's with 1.5gb ram each. Budget was $5200. Machines are idle. Something new we have been looking at as well. We are looking at setting up simple relays that will run RBL on the front end and then just hand them off to our 4 backend servers. But since it works right now we're not going to fix it. > -----Original Message----- > From: email builder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:19 PM > To: Jason Frisvold > Cc: Gary W. Smith; users@spamassassin.apache.org > Subject: Re: Load balancing spamd > > > > --- Jason Frisvold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 8/1/05, email builder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Even if I had forgotten the -A, I think I would have been seeing > > connection > > > refused notices, but right now, it just seems to time out. I'm pretty > > sure > > > this is a LVS question more than a spamc/d question, since I've no > > problems > > > with the latter -- I am only asking here to see if anyone else does SA > > > weighted load balancing. > > > > I kinda went the other way around.. I have multiple mail machines, > > each with their own instance of spamd. I use a Cisco 7206 VXR to do > > the load balancing. Works like a charm. > > Wow, a bit out of our price range here. :) > > We have also considered just continuing to build out MTA boxes each with > an > Amavis/Clamd and SA on them to share our increasing load (just use LVS to > balance the incoming SMTP traffic and there is little reason to worry > about > balancing SA or Amavis/Clam), but our first choice is to split the > "layers" > -- have a couple separate machines that just do MTA-ish things, and a > separate set of boxes that serve as a "SA (and Clam-av) farm". The thing > that's better about doing it that way is the redundancy that you don't get > if > you aren't sharing spamd instances across all your MTA machines. > > Technically, this should be feasible with just plain DNS load balancing, > but > in our current medium/low budget scenario, we don't have the rackspace to > have numerous boxes that are dedicated ONLY to SA/clam, thus our desire is > to > figure out a way to *WEIGHT* our spamd balancing. > > I'm surprised there's not a lot of folks out there who have done this > before....? > > Thanks again! > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs >
