Re: PostFix question
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Luc MAIGNAN wrote: > I use postfix as MTA for several web-sites, and I want to allow the address > 'contact' available for each site : for example, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL > PROTECTED] > and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not enough information: Is this "contact" one mailbox or three unique people? > But it doesn't work. Anyone has an idea ? What is "it"? You haven't told use what you have tried. Maybe this webpage can help: Setting up Postfix with virtual domains support http://www.reedmedia.net/software/virtualmail-pop3d/mda/postfix.html (I compiled these, but have not tested.) Good luck. If you have more questions, tell us in detail what you have tried and exactly what results you need. Also, please consider sharing what ends up working for you. Jeremy C. Reed .. ISP-FAQ.com -- find answers to your questions http://www.isp-faq.com/
Apache Rewrite Module
Hello
Sorry if this is not posted to the correct group.
I am using the rewrite module to do mass hosting and it works fine for
xxx.domain.tld but I need to allow domain.tld aswell. Is there any way of
forcing the www ?
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^([^.]+)\.(.*)$
RewriteRule ^(.*) /home/web/www/%2/%1$1
Here www.domain.tld translates to
/home/web/www/domain/www/ to allow users to create xxx.domaine.tld.
But http://domain.tld translate to
/home/web/www/tld/domain
Any help appreciated.
:-)
Re: stable vs testing
> Anyway, thats our take on it... and its never failed us so far. Takes > quite a bit of effort though... so watch out. Just to chime in, we use stable only, with quite a few backports. [1] Often enough there's a package I'd really like - right now it's a fresh postfix - but I find greater stability and less trouble sticking with known good software for as long as possible. For environments in which change management is a big task, it is *far* saner to stick with stable. - Jeff [1] deb http://solutionsfirst.com.au/debian potato sol1 -- "A rest with a fermata is the moral opposite of the fast food restaurant with express lane." - James Gleick, Faster
Re: replicating, balanced web-server with *write* access?
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001 18:47, Christian Hammers wrote: > Much is written about High-Availability servers but I still didn't find a > good solution how to build two load-balanced webservers _without_ > connecting them both to one RAID (single point of failure). > > The problem with balancing between two servers is that the might host > web-servers that could write a file on system A and then reading this file > (status file or whatever) on system B immediately before e.g. rsync could > transfer it. In the worst case writing/reading could happen for two > different connection so that even connection based balancing wouldn't work. Given that you have already ruled out GFS (and presumably also NBD which is as far from production-ready as GFS), there are only two real options: 1) Use rsync to transfer files, and for writes have some sort of database push (EG use ssh to run a program on the primary server which does the update). Then of course the data you read won't be as new as the data you've written. 2) Use a database for data that has to be written by the web server. But that raises a whole new set of issues such as redundant databases. Some things aren't easily solved, and this is virtually impossible to solve with today's technology. However that's OK. Some of the attempts I've seen to solve such things give a net reduction in reliability! When designing for high availability I aim for minimum loss of service (not necessarily minimum downtime). So if something goes wrong and 10% of the functionality isn't available for a few hours it's often not such a big deal. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Re: replicating, balanced web-server with *write* access?
On Sun, Nov 11, 2001 at 06:14:23PM +0100, Russell Coker wrote: > 1) Use rsync to transfer files, and for writes have some sort of database > push (EG use ssh to run a program on the primary server which does the > update). Then of course the data you read won't be as new as the data you've > written. Now I'll probably make one sleeping-failover server which rsyncs every five minutes and only comes to play if the main server goes down. > When designing for high availability I aim for minimum loss of service (not > necessarily minimum downtime). So if something goes wrong and 10% of the > functionality isn't available for a few hours it's often not such a big deal. But you often have problems like crashing systems when the tape is in use or the load gets too high. Then you want to examine the whole physical computer so a real downtime is needed. On the other hand you won't let anybody realize this so a immediate sync would be coll. But as you said that's impossible for now... bye, -christian-
Re: Journaling FS for Production Systems
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 10:53:46AM +0200, I. Forbes wrote: > > - It seems, that at this point in time, xfs is more stable than > reiserfs. However I am not sure if that is because fewer people > have tried it, and hence fewer people have experienced problems. > Are there many xfs users our there? Is the development active? > If not is it because the xfs is stable, or has the xfs initiative > lost momentum? Although XFS is cool in many ways, the port for linux is pretty much a hack. I work for a company that is doing alot of development with XFS on Linux, although we are forced to use it, because it works with LVM growing filesystems etc. ReiserFS supports fs growth, but not over an LVM. I suggest ext3, it's the most solid codebase, and provides the best overall performance. We use it (ext3) for all other products except for this one that uses LVM (Can't really talk about the product, since it's still in development). -- Nick Jennings
Fwd: Re: [reiserfs-list] Fwd: Re: Journaling FS for Production Systems
-- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] Fwd: Re: Journaling FS for Production Systems Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 17:03:35 -0700 From: Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com > On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 10:53:46AM +0200, I. Forbes wrote: > > - It seems, that at this point in time, xfs is more stable than > > reiserfs. However I am not sure if that is because fewer people > > have tried it, and hence fewer people have experienced problems. > > Are there many xfs users our there? Is the development active? > > If not is it because the xfs is stable, or has the xfs initiative > > lost momentum? > > Although XFS is cool in many ways, the port for linux is pretty much > a hack. I work for a company that is doing alot of development with > XFS on Linux, although we are forced to use it, because it works with > LVM growing filesystems etc. ReiserFS supports fs growth, but not over > an LVM. Hmm, I don't see why LVM has anything to do with it. If reiserfs can grow (which it can) then you just grow the fs after the LV grows. > I suggest ext3, it's the most solid codebase, and provides the best > overall performance. We use it (ext3) for all other products except for > this one that uses LVM (Can't really talk about the product, since > it's still in development). Well, it is true that you can't online resize ext3 yet (not enough hours in the day for me to finish that), but you can offline resize it. That may not be good enough for you application. I'm willing to be convinced to work on it. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/ http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ --- -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
