Hi,
Ken Murchison wrote:
I think this would cause performance to suffer greatly. I think what
we want is "lazy" replication, where the client gets instant results
from the machine its connected to, and the replication is done in the
background. I believe this is what David's implementation doe
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Paul Dekkers wrote:
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:25:26 +0200
From: Paul Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Funding Cyrus High Availability
Hi,
Eric S. Pulley wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
perf
Hello,
as Ken Murchison told me you could help me on my authentication problems, I
send you the scenario.
My main problem is to make Frontend services like LMTP and POP authenticate
against backend. Users are capable to authenticate either as SASLDB or as
LDAP users.
And at the bottom of the pr
Am Freitag, 17. September 2004 09:13 schrieb Laurent GAUTHIER:
> as Ken Murchison told me you could help me on my authentication problems,
> I send you the scenario.
> My main problem is to make Frontend services like LMTP and POP authenticate
> against backend. Users are capable to authenticate
David Lang wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
Cyrus performs pretty well already. Background redundancy would be
awesome. Especially if we had control over when the syncing process
occurred either via time interval or date/time.
I
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Paul Dekkers wrote:
Isn't it possible to have equal roles? If all changes are put in some
backlog, and a synchroniser process runs on both machines and pushes the
backlog (as soon as there is any) to another machine... then you can
have the some process on both (equal) serve
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 08:25:26 +0200
Paul Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would say not at an interval but as soon as there is an action
> performed on one mailbox, the other one would be pushed to do something.
> I believe that is called rolling replication.
>
> I would not be really happ
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Jure [ISO-8859-2] Pe_ar wrote:
So how does this "cyrus in a raid view" sound? It should probalby be
called "raims" for redundand array of inexpensive mail servers anyway ;)
We call it RAIN: Redundant Array of Inexpensive Nodes.
Really cheap Intel servers in our case :)
--
Davi
Hello,
All that you say is true. But for performance one either
buys bigger and better or multiple machines to spread the
load. Murder allows one to buy multiple machines.
All I am saying is that improving perforance may already
be done. I believe redundancy in the application is more
important at
I'm not in a position to donate, but I would like to throw in a vote for
the raid style implementation. We have a murder with 4 backend servers
and that would definitely be a feature that I would take advantage of.
My only question is how well would that scale, you would have to
redistribute the
Wang Penghui wrote:
Hi all:
Does cyrus-imapd server have the limit of long size of mailbox name?
For example:
A virtual domain named: my.example.com
And the login name is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there any limit with the login name? If yes, what's it?
I believe this is MAX_MAILBOX_NAME which is set to
David Lang wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
for performance we already have murder, what we currently lack is
redundancy. once we have redundancy then the next enhancement is going
to
Hello!
I'm trying to read /var/imap/quota//user.surname and is
impossible.
I changed permissions to give access to all users in the mail group,
but [i don't know why] the permissions are resotred to:
cyrus.mail 600
then, mail users cannot read.
How can i change that?
[i
My vote would be for active/active, its usually more reliable and of
course it builds in better scaleability. I imagine the the main
question of everyone will be how the choice of active/active or
active/passive will effect cost/time of implementation.
L
On Sep 17, 2004, at 1:16 PM, Ken Murchis
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
David Lang wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Ken Murchison wrote:
Question: Are people looking at this as both redundancy and
performance, or just redundance?
for performance we already have murder, what we currently lack is
redundancy. once we have redundan
My biggest question here is, simply, why recreate what's already
out there?
There are a number of projects (LVM, PVFS) which do this kind of
replication/distribution/virtulization for filesystems.
There are a number of databases which have active/active clustering
(mysql, DB2, Oracle, et al) and
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:28:08 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My biggest question here is, simply, why recreate what's already
> out there?
Because none of the existing solutions does not fit our needs well enough.
> There are a number of projects (LVM, PVFS) which do this kind of
> replicatio
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My biggest question here is, simply, why recreate what's already
out there?
There are a number of projects (LVM, PVFS) which do this kind of
replication/distribution/virtulization for filesystems.
There are a number of databases which have active/active
> -Original Message-
> From: David Lang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 2:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Funding Cyrus High Availability
> Mike, one of the problems with this is that different databases have
> different in
FreeBSD 4.X printf() and friends support the %llu format. scanf()
and friends do not. I suspect this is true of most BSD-4.4 derived
systems. I don't know what ANSI says about this issue.
One way to fix it is attached. My autoconf foo is lacking so I
just jammed a #define into configure.in whe
20 matches
Mail list logo
