On 18.1.2012, at 20.51, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:58:31PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote: >> >>> --i.e. all the >>> suggestions at http://wiki2.dovecot.org/NFS. Is that definitely not >>> the case? Is there anything else (beyond moving to a director-based >>> architecture) that can mitigate the risk of index corruption? In our >>> case, incoming IMAP/POP are 'stuck' to servers based on IP persistence >>> for a given amount of time, but incoming LDA is randomly distributed. >> >> What's the problem with director-based architecture? > > It hasn't been working reliably for lmtp in v2.0.
Yes, besides that :) > To quote yourself: > > ----8<----8<----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<----8<-----8<----8<----8<-- > > I think the way I originally planned LMTP proxying to work is simply too > complex to work reliably, perhaps even if the code was bug-free. So > instead of reading+writing DATA at the same time, this patch changes the > DATA to be first read into memory or temp file, and then from there read > and sent to the LMTP backends: > > http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/raw-rev/51d87deb5c26 > > ----8<----8<----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<----8<-----8<----8<----8<-- > > unfortunately I haven't tested that patch, so I have no idea if it > fixed the issues or not... I'm not sure if that patch is useful or not. The important patch to fix it is http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.0/rev/71084b799a6c
