Load Balancing + File Locking

[Martin Hepworth]

<x-flowed>
Vasiliv

that's what's achieved by round-robin DNS.

Or do you a central file store for all queues, quarantine dir etc. You 
could always have a third machine with the file stores on it that's 
mounted by all the other hosts, but you still have the issus of the 
fileserver going down...

--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
Solid State Logic
Tel: +44 (0)1865 842300


Boulytchev, Vasiliy wrote:
> :))))))))))))))   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
> 

**********************************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept
for the presence of computer viruses and is believed to be clean.

**********************************************************************

------------------------ 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).

</x-flowed>