Question on reducing load on MailScanner machine

Christopher Fisk cfisk at
Thu Jun 25 21:41:06 IST 2009

>  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.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list