On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 04:11:30PM -0600, CJ Kucera said:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 04:31:42PM -0500, Blaine Simpson wrote:
> > I would suggest as a safer and more reliable alternative, to set up
> > a new transmitting server like you are thinking, but instead of
> > copying or sharing files (both alternatives entail non-trivial
> > synchronization issues), just have your existing receiving server
> > forward as if the transmitting server were a smart host. I.e., set up
>
> Thanks for the response; I think I'm actually looking for something else
> a little different... The problem that we're seeing right now is
> that the queue is just continuing to grow, and our queue runners on
> the mail mail queue just aren't keeping up with demand. So what
> we were considering doing is restarting exim to use a new, completely
> fresh, unused queue directory, and then move the old queue over
> to a different machine to just do a simple one-time process run
> through the queue. The second machine would only run that old
> queue; it wouldn't be queuing up any new messages or accepting
> anything else into the queue.
>
> It's basically a stopgap solution until we can get an extra set
> of controller and drives for the main server.
I think you want fallback_hosts (IIRC) - exim tries to send amessage,
can't, adn then passes the message to the fallback_host. No problems
sharingthe actual queue files and all the interesting raciness that
involves, but the queue is effectively transferred.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Gran | I knew I'd hate COBOL the moment I saw |
| steve@??? | they'd used "perform" instead of "do". |
| http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | -- Larry Wall on a not-so-popular |
| | programming language |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
