Has anyone tried running the sendmail *spool* dir on a filer?
we tried and failed miserably, but didn't have time to investigate.
- mo
Visit our website at http://www.ubs.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This message is provided for informational purposes and should not be construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments.
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:29:31 +0100 moritz.willers@ubs.com wrote:
Has anyone tried running the sendmail *spool* dir on a filer?
we tried and failed miserably, but didn't have time to investigate.
I think sendmail and traditional spool (all mails in one file) will be a mess over NFS. We have no trouble with postfix/maildrop spool on NFS. The spool is separated over several filers, volumes and qtrees for performance reasons. (a few hundred million small files are the best performance killers you can get ;-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
IMO, not a good idea. Running the spool in a shared enviroment, across nfs, will definitely kill performance. You do win that the mail servers suddenly don't have an identity (as far as owning a incoming queue), but I don't see it as worth the performance hit.
Gabriel
moritz.willers@ubs.com wrote: | Has anyone tried running the sendmail *spool* dir on a filer? | | we tried and failed miserably, but didn't have time to investigate.
- -- Gabriel Cain www.dialupusa.net Senior Systems Administrator gabriel@dialupusa.net PGP fingerprint: C0B4 C6BF 13F5 69D1 3E6B CD7C D4C8 2EA4 2B08 1C6D
Technology for the sake of business.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:15:16AM -0700, Gabriel wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
IMO, not a good idea. Running the spool in a shared enviroment, across nfs, will definitely kill performance. You do win that the mail servers suddenly don't have an identity (as far as owning a incoming queue), but I don't see it as worth the performance hit.
Yeah, it's really not. Using a few Raptor's on a 3-ware or other appropriate raid setup for the server will get you many times the performance for significantly less cost.
let's discuss DRP perspective : if your mail server crash - ok, you still have all your mail and log on the filer
but does the backup mail server you just setted up back is able to
restart mail service in mounting mail and log on the filer - even with a blanck spool or queue dir?
Gabriel wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
IMO, not a good idea. Running the spool in a shared enviroment, across nfs, will definitely kill performance. You do win that the mail servers suddenly don't have an identity (as far as owning a incoming queue), but I don't see it as worth the performance hit.
Gabriel
moritz.willers@ubs.com wrote: | Has anyone tried running the sendmail *spool* dir on a filer? | | we tried and failed miserably, but didn't have time to investigate.
Gabriel Cain www.dialupusa.net Senior Systems Administrator gabriel@dialupusa.net PGP fingerprint: C0B4 C6BF 13F5 69D1 3E6B CD7C D4C8 2EA4 2B08 1C6D
Technology for the sake of business.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAj+ag1MgupCsIHG0RAvmLAKCGFdw6B9doyJwMhVXg0lW/ri0sowCgopdC wzuag/VPOvc9ItNmKPOQxWk= =0LtB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hey toaster guys and gals;
I'm rolling a SuSE Linux admin host for one of my NetApps and I was wondering if anyone who's already done this could give me real-life feedback.
I'm wanting it so I can mount up both the CIFS shares and the NFS exports all on the same box, and have the same nice UNIX toolset (scripting, find, grep, awk, PERL, etc.) and manage my CIFS data same as the NFS data. I'm thinking SuSE Linux 9.x for the admin host.
Any thoughts or feedback? Any big pluses or minuses? Do I HAVE to make it a member of the AD for it to fully manage all the data?
Thanks; JKB
-
Gabriel -
James Brigman -
Kelsey Cummings -
moritz.willers＠ubs.com -
Stefan Funke -
Stephane Bentebba