Noll Janos schrieb am Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 02:25:51PM +0100: * Hello! * * On 10-Jan-2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * > Upon inexpensivety: Maybe there is another idea possible. Kimberlite * > does sort of a parallel mount to a RAID on a shared SCSI bus. Maybe * > there is a way here to achieve low-level distance. If you have a bus * > that could be transported over some length - say: fiberchannel over ATM? - * > there would be no need to bother what the OS does on it. * * And also, there is a theoretical "third" way: * * The IMAP aggregator/proxy should connect to not one, but two boxes (the * "appropriate" one for the user, and the backup of that one). * * Whenever there's a "modifying" command (like "DELETE"), it should execute that * on both the live box and the hot backup. If a "FETCH" command arrives, that can * be executed on any one of the boxes. This way, the mail stores should be * synchronized. But you must also ensure that when one box disconnects, * dies, and then reconnects, it has to synchronize. And, of course, incoming * smtp/lmtpd mail must go to both boxes.
Yep, this is an option to think about. But to get back to the costs (e.g. CPU, network): Is this mechanism fast enough for 50-100k users on a stock PC box? I.e. has anyone tested aggregator/proxy on performance with 100 miles between two machines? (would be very interesting, maybe the overhead is not as big as one would assume...) Regards, - Birger
