Load Balancing + File Locking

[Boulytchev, Vasiliy]

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

:))))))))))))))   Brilliant! :)))))))))))))))))

This is definitely a nice way to use round robin DNS... To your advantage
even.  Sweet.

Unfortunately this don^Òt help us :(.   We must load balance this sucker.  If
we will not have loadbalancing, we shall achieve the same with running
sendmail on each mailscanner box, and vuala..... But I really want a
Mailscanner Cluster!  I want redundancy! 


Vasiliy Boulytchev
Colorado Information Technologies, Inc.
http://www.coinfotech.com

-----Original Message-----
From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf
Of Denis Beauchemin
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:56 PM
To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: Load Balancing + File Locking


Boulytchev, Vasiliy wrote:

>Ladies and Gents,
>        The loads on the mail server require us to start moving 
>Mailscanner with Spam and Virus filtering to other machines.  Questions:
>        1.)     How does MS do the locking on files in the submitted
>directory (after cgp2ms)?  If NFS3 is used to mount that shared folder 
>on say 3 servers designated to only scanning mail, how do we avoid run-ons?
>        2.)     Idea: if the local procs keep track of locking, then we can
>toss all that into mysql for example? :)))  Just thinking of ways to 
>add scalability.
>
>  
>

Vasiliy,

We have 2 MS servers for incoming mail and they don't share any spool
directory.  They are separate servers and the load balancing is done through
the MX records.  Our 2 servers were not identical (one was about twice as
fast as the other) and we had the following:
# host -t mx usherbrooke.ca
usherbrooke.ca mail is handled by 10 smtpe1.usherbrooke.ca.
usherbrooke.ca mail is handled by 10 smtpe2.usherbrooke.ca.
usherbrooke.ca mail is handled by 10 smtpe3.usherbrooke.ca.

Here smtpe1 and smtpe3 are the same machine (the fastest one) with different
IP.  It received close to 2/3 of all mail.

I just replaced the slowest one (smtpe2) by a machine identical to the
fastest one (smtpe1) so I asked our DNS guys to drop the smtpe3 name.

Denis

-- 
   _
  °v°   Denis Beauchemin, analyste
 /(_)\  Université de Sherbrooke, S.T.I.
  ^ ^   T: 819.821.8000x2252 F: 819.821.8045

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------ To
unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and the
archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

    [ Part 2, Application/X-PKCS7-SIGNATURE  5.9KB. ]
    [ Unable to print this part. ]