On Seg, 2009-09-28 at 15:55 +0100, Ed W wrote: > You didn't get much answer to this - I'm probably not the best person to > answer, but > > > Are there any performance benefits to using a proxying server, or is it just > > for splitting mailstores? > > > > I think this is the main reason for the proxying option. It would > appear that others have measured the performance load of the proxy task > and found it near negligible? Hence it seems possible to use a bunch of > backend servers and a few frontend servers to forward the user to the > correct backend server. I believe each connection needs to be setup > each time though, so for sure some more advanced proxies with persistent > caching of connections may offer a performance improvement if your > servers are loaded due to the login part (but I guess measure this first > before assuming it's so?)
Proxy servers are usually set between the webmail and the imap server. That's because webmails are a bitch regarding opening+closing connections and so the proxy gets most of connection + auth + do something + disconnect and keeps a limited pool of per user connections to the imap servers that it re-uses. Proxies are usually installed on the same servers that the webmail, with the webmail connecting to 127.0.0.1:someport. -- Jose Celestino SAPO.pt::Systems http://www.sapo.pt --------------------------------------------------------------------- * Progress (n.): The process through which Usenet has evolved from smart people in front of dumb terminals to dumb people in front of smart terminals.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
