On Saturday, August 10, 2002, at 10:38 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> (Jawaid.Bazyar@???) [Sunday, August 11, 2002 1:08 AM]:
>
>> My concern with an approach like that is that it multiplies
>> administration. If I have 3 front-end servers, I then have 3 places
>> to go to administer frozen mail, 3 efficiency reports to analyze, etc.
>
> All of which is extremely scriptable.
>
>> For me it's also not so simple, because I don't have one MX domain, I
>> have thousands. For this I'd rather let the Alteon load-balancer
>> handle failover instead of doing via MX.
>
> Fine - if you have several pointing in with an Alteon, then that's cool
>
> But sharing a spool across NFS will give you more grief than you need.
>
>> And most importantly, if one of the front-ends goes down then any
>> mail in its spool will not get processed until that server is
>> restored to operation.
>
> True. So the thing is to see that the thing doesn't go down, and have
> netsaint or something monitor it 24x7 ...
or put the spool disks on a san, or have all spool entries written to
two physical places.
>
> -srs
>
>
> --
>
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim
> details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
>
>
// George Schlossnagle
// Principal Consultant
// OmniTI, Inc http://www.omniti.com
// (c) 240.460.5234 (e) george@???
// 1024D/1100A5A0 1370 F70A 9365 96C9 2F5E 56C2 B2B9 262F 1100 A5A0
