Question on reducing load on MailScanner machine

[Christopher Fisk]

>  The setup used by everyone else in the universe is to
>  have multiple MX 
>  servers sharing the incoming mail load.

We have a 10 MX and a 20 MX on a remote site which just queues messages, doesn't check for recipient or for spam.

I've never run two mail servers of the same priority, although I'm sure it is easy enough.


>  Let me get this straight.
>  You've got a huge mail queue, and yet you have a server
>  sitting there 
>  switched off.
>  Dare I suggest you switch it on?

This thread is about how I go about doing the actual switching on.  Right now it's just extra hardware in case our first server dies.  We have it there, the goal is to use it.  I want to "switch it on" correctly though.  If I didn't start this thread and ask, there is a good chance I would have tried just NFS mounting the hold queue and firing up MailScanner.  Obviously that would have been bad per your addition below =)

So yes, your suggestion to switch it on is the one we're going to do, I just need to make sure I get the configuration correct.  This is part of my planning to make sure I do it correctly.


>  > There is actually a good chance I will test this out. 
>  If I do I will inform of the results.
>  >    
>  It won't work. Anyone sane runs multiple MX servers :-)

The reason (Might not be a good one!) I have shied away from anything more than a backup MX which queues messages if the main MX server goes down is due to the logistics of keeping them both in sync with mail accounts.  I'm thinking I will have to move my account database to a third machine or just run it on one of the two I would have in place.

A third machine seems ideal.


>  It does it all via file locking. And that locking is the
>  same method 
>  used by your MTA. And that is not designed to work across
>  NFS. So don't 
>  waste your time trying :)

OK, then this method gets shelved.

Now to present the options to the decision makers.


Thank you's all for your time on this!


Christopher Fisk

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.