On 10/09/2010 07:50, Edward avanti wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 3.9.2010, at 7.00, Noel Butler wrote:
I do take exception to be told this issue can be fixed, but NFS users
are not worth it, which is essentially what he told us, I dare say if
this l
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 3.9.2010, at 7.00, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> > I do take exception to be told this issue can be fixed, but NFS users
> > are not worth it, which is essentially what he told us, I dare say if
> > this list was flooded by dovecot NFS users aski
On 7.9.2010, at 11.41, Noel Butler wrote:
> but as I've said (many times now) imap is not an issue here, as primary
> use is pop3 and rarely is leave on server used based on some useage
> tests over the mail store directories
BTW. Dovecot is primarily an IMAP server and optimized for that. For PO
Tim,
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 12:26 -0700, Tim Traver wrote:
> yes, there is no change on the delivery performance, as dovecot-lda is
> just a delivery program to the Maildir just like any other. The thing
> that it does different is update the dovecot uidlist and update the
> index with a new mail
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 09:50 +0200, Cor Bosman wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>
> > I do take exception to be told this issue can be fixed, but NFS users
> > are not worth it, which is essentially what he told us, I dare say if
>
> I guess he told you this in private? The way i understand it the
yep, we ha
On 9/2/2010 11:20 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 22:36 -0700, Tim Traver wrote:
>
>
>> As I read down the thread, I realized that many of the posters were
>> pointing out that it shouldn't be used because postfix or qmail can
>> deliver without problems. But in doing that, you los
For those that are worried about the md5 hash sending out most users to 1
server and thus loadbalancing badly. This doesnt seem to be the case. I just
pointed one of our test webmail environments to a director cluster
(2 director servers behind a foundry, pointing to 2 real imap servers), and
th
On 3.9.2010, at 7.00, Noel Butler wrote:
> I do take exception to be told this issue can be fixed, but NFS users
> are not worth it, which is essentially what he told us, I dare say if
> this list was flooded by dovecot NFS users asking he'd quickly change
> his mind, but as everyone here knows, t
Hi Noel,
> I do take exception to be told this issue can be fixed, but NFS users
> are not worth it, which is essentially what he told us, I dare say if
I guess he told you this in private? The way i understand it the
index-over-nfs problem can not be fixed 100%. I know for a fact Timo
tried ver
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 22:36 -0700, Tim Traver wrote:
>
> As I read down the thread, I realized that many of the posters were
> pointing out that it shouldn't be used because postfix or qmail can
> deliver without problems. But in doing that, you lose the performance
> gain (and in my case the us
FFS Gerard keep your self appointed net copping to hte other usual
lists, even though on one of them (MailSCaner) you were told by JF that
anyone can post in anyway they want, including top post. your not a
moderator here, stop playing one.
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 18:19 -0400, Jerry wrote:
> On Fr
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 07:22 +1000, Edward avanti wrote:
> why you reply with 7 page of rubbish?
nasty, he was trying to explain it, even though you (i, and some others)
feel its irrelevant , perhaps this subject could have bene modified to
remove director :)
By a quick skim of this (I didnt ge
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 07:16 +1000, Edward avanti wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> > On 8/31/2010 10:22, Ariel Biener wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, and Timo, I don't think we are just "a couple of NFS users". Maildir
> > > and NFS are not as uncommon as
> > > you'd thin
On 9/2/2010 4:32 PM, Edward avanti wrote:
> have you been told where you might go lately and do with some part your
> anatomy?
> this Timo list, not you list, best remember this since you nobody this list
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jerry wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:22:00 +1000
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edward avanti
>
> have you been told where you might go lately and do with some part your
> anatomy?
> this Timo list, not you list, best remember this since you nobody this list
Seriously? Grow up and/or take it off-list.
-Brad
have you been told where you might go lately and do with some part your
anatomy?
this Timo list, not you list, best remember this since you nobody this list
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Jerry wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:22:00 +1000
> Edward avanti articulated:
>
> > why you reply with 7
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:22:00 +1000
Edward avanti articulated:
> why you reply with 7 page of rubbish?
> yes we all see you fan of director, many not.
> why go on tangent about it, it already said it not for us, director
> not able to help on 24 inbound mail server, else might well turn it
> all of
why you reply with 7 page of rubbish?
yes we all see you fan of director, many not.
why go on tangent about it, it already said it not for us, director not able
to help on 24 inbound mail server, else might well turn it all off now, you
clear yet? on any other list you be label troll
director is no
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 8/31/2010 10:22, Ariel Biener wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and Timo, I don't think we are just "a couple of NFS users". Maildir
> > and NFS are not as uncommon as
> > you'd think, even in very large installations.
> >
>
>
> NFS with maildir has bee
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 09:47 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-09-02 9:08 AM, Cor Bosman wrote:
> > NFS has a problem where caching of the files
> > can cause each imap server to see outdated information. Server 1 could
> > have just written some updates into the index file, but Server 2 doesn
On 2010-09-02 9:08 AM, Cor Bosman wrote:
> NFS has a problem where caching of the files
> can cause each imap server to see outdated information. Server 1 could
> have just written some updates into the index file, but Server 2 doesnt
> see this yet, and writes conflicting data into the index file
Hi,
> We use Dovecot only recent, but many I speak use for very many year, if
> director was really need, why it only come about now and not 5 or more year
> ago, all many mail network run broken for so many year? I no think so.
> It might compliment some situation, but not suitable or advantage
On 8/31/2010 10:22, Ariel Biener wrote:
>
> Oh, and Timo, I don't think we are just "a couple of NFS users". Maildir
> and NFS are not as uncommon as
> you'd think, even in very large installations.
>
NFS with maildir has been the gold standard for a long time, whether the
NFS server be boxes
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 09:18 +0200, Cor Bosman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> imap access is not common in this country, it is in fact extremely rare,
> common only for webmail servers.
>
>
Much of Asia also no use imap as primary mail for customer
> > Al
Hi,
> Postfix has this issue as well. So does qmail. So does exim. It has nothing
> to do with the software being used. It is a problem in the NFS protocol.
Just to be clear. Of course these programs wont have this issue when used
with dovecot-imap, because obviously they wont be updating any dov
Hi Noel, if you dont need the director, then thats great right? Why does
anyone need to justify anything? Just dont use it, end of discussion. Those
of us that do have a need for it, can use it anyways. Even without your
agreement? Is that such a big problem?
> we have a some total of 2 imap serv
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 09:18 +0200, Cor Bosman wrote:
> Noel, I think you just dont quite understand the problem the director is
> solving.
>
> The issue is that NFS is not lock-safe over multiple servers. We have 35
> imap servers accessing a central NFS cluster. (we have over a million
> mailbo
We're a similar installation (60-70k users, FAS3050 cluster).
We have been using "perdition" (IMAP/POP redirector) software
for a while. The IMAP/POP.ourdomain A records point to 2 front ends,
which all they do is to redirect the IMAP/POP session to the a specific
mail server for each user, based
On 28.8.2010, at 8.18, Cor Bosman wrote:
> What the dovecot director is doing is ensuring that sessions from the same
> user all get directed to the same imap server, so NFS locking works safely.
It's actually not about locking, but about caching.
Noel, I think you just dont quite understand the problem the director is
solving.
The issue is that NFS is not lock-safe over multiple servers. We have 35
imap servers accessing a central NFS cluster. (we have over a million
mailboxes) We offer IMAP to end user clients, and through webmail. This
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Cor Bosman wrote:
We might be a slightly larger install than you (60k users, mail on FAS 3170
Metrocluster), but we have noticed corruption issues and the director is
definitely going to see use in our shop. We still use Sendmail+procmail for
delivery, so no issue there... b
> We might be a slightly larger install than you (60k users, mail on FAS 3170
> Metrocluster), but we have noticed corruption issues and the director is
> definitely going to see use in our shop. We still use Sendmail+procmail for
> delivery, so no issue there... but we've got hordes of IMAP users
Hi,
> If you don't mind random Dovecot errors about index corruption I guess you're
> fine with how it works now. I guess your mails are delivered to maildirs by
> qmail? If you ever switch to Dovecot LDA you'll probably start getting more
> errors. And if you ever plan to switch to dbox format
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 04:04 -0700, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> To each their own. If your setup works without it, then fine, don't use
> it... but I don't see why you feel the need to disparage it either. It's
I'll some it up put well by someone who mailed me offlist...
mx-in-1 gets the connectio
On 27.8.2010, at 5.59, Noel Butler wrote:
> I've asked if it can avoid touching
> the index files before (see a thread as recent as a few weeks back),
You can avoid touching indexes:
protocol lda {
mail_location = maildir:~/Maildir:INDEX=MEMORY
}
But you still have the problem of dovecot-uidl
Noel,
On 8/26/10 11:28 PM, "Noel Butler" wrote:
> I just fail to see why adding more complexity, and essentially making
> $9K load balancers redundant, is the way of the future.
To each their own. If your setup works without it, then fine, don't use
it... but I don't see why you feel the need to
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> Noel,
>
> On 8/26/10 9:59 PM, "Noel Butler" wrote:
>
> >> I fail to see advantage if anything it add in more point of failure,
> with
> >
> > i agree with this and it is why we dont use it
> >
> > we use dovecots deliver with postfix and
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 08:54 +1000, Edward avanti wrote:
>
> > Halo,
> > Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load
> balancer.
>
>
> it is no advantage over a dedicated hardware solution, but director does
> not do the e
Brandon,
I just fail to see why adding more complexity, and essentially making
$9K load balancers redundant, is the way of the future, Timo has said
its very safe for index's if non dovecot programs write to the maildir,
so why the hell is it deliberately left risky using dovecots deliver,
I've see
Noel,
On 8/26/10 9:59 PM, "Noel Butler" wrote:
>> I fail to see advantage if anything it add in more point of failure, with
>
> i agree with this and it is why we dont use it
>
> we use dovecots deliver with postfix and have noticed no problems, not
> to say there was none, but if so, we dont
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 08:54 +1000, Edward avanti wrote:
> Halo,
> Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load balancer.
it is no advantage over a dedicated hardware solution, but director does
not do the exact same thing.
> I fail to see advantage if anything it add in mo
On 27.8.2010, at 1.47, Edward avanti wrote:
>>> Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load
>> balancer.
>>
>> It guarantees that the same user is accessed via the same server. Hardware
>> LB can at best assign the connections from the same IP to the same server
>> (but not
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 26.8.2010, at 23.54, Edward avanti wrote:
>
> > Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load
> balancer.
>
> It guarantees that the same user is accessed via the same server. Hardware
> LB can at best assign the conne
On 26.8.2010, at 23.54, Edward avanti wrote:
> Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load balancer.
It guarantees that the same user is accessed via the same server. Hardware LB
can at best assign the connections from the same IP to the same server (but not
e.g. new mail
44 matches
Mail list logo
