Matt Prigge wrote:
>
> > Right, the 'mailstore-entities' (actually a cluster of two
> > machines sharing a raid-array) have to be redundant
> > themselves - as it was mentioned by Atif Ghaffar already.
>
> Is that even possible? I dont doubt your suggestion, I just didnt know that
> linux would support sharing the same array with n+1 machines.
Yes Matt its possible.
> I was pretty
> sure that there would be file locking issues or something along those lines.
> Are there any specific restrictions on this? (type of FS used, type of
> array, etc) Im guessing that there is probably a website somewhere devoted
> to this topic, but if there is I havent found it yet.
You may want to have a look at
http://www.globalfilesystem.org
> I have toyed with the
> idea of using a shared fiberchannel SAN for a long time, but I was pretty
> sure it wouldnt work (not to mention they are sort of expensive.. hehe.).
You were pretty sure that it will not work? why were you so sure?
It works, in lot of production enviroments. Not to mention, better than
on NT :)
Expensive: Yes, ofcoarse, it is. When you start to learn and use words
like "redundant", "high available", "scalable" etc, then you have to
stop using words like "expensive" "affordable" etc, etc :)
best regards
--
Atif Ghaffar
Internet Development Manager
4unet AG/SA
-------------------------.
+41 78 787 51 45 ¦ voice
+41 86 0796598972¦ fax
http://www.4unet.net ¦ www
http://atif.developer.ch ¦ homepage
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¦ email
Do you speak Unix?
