Jure PeÃÂar wrote:
Although many on the list claim that this (having 2 boxes with 1
disk-array) is a nice way for redundancy I'm in doubt now if this is
true. It still takes 30 mins before everything is back again! It seems
to me that if there was a "live" version of cyrus available with a
sync
Hi,
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
There are two machines for redundancy. If one fails, the other one
should
take over: mount the disks from the array, and move on.
Right, works fine for us for the most part. Hasn't always been like
that, but the most recent kernel updates by Red Hat have improved
ma
Hi,
--On Freitag, 10. September 2004 13:24 Uhr +0200 Paul Dekkers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We're implementing a new mailplatform running on two dell 2650-servers (2
xeon cpu's with each 3 Ghz, HTT and 3Gb of memory) and with a disk array
of 4 Tb connected with a adaptec 39160 scsi controller fo
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 13:24:42 +0200
Paul Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although many on the list claim that this (having 2 boxes with 1
> disk-array) is a nice way for redundancy I'm in doubt now if this is
> true. It still takes 30 mins before everything is back again! It seems
> to me t
Hi,
We're implementing a new mailplatform running on two dell 2650-servers
(2 xeon cpu's with each 3 Ghz, HTT and 3Gb of memory) and with a disk
array of 4 Tb connected with a adaptec 39160 scsi controller for
storage. We installed FreeBSD 5.2.1 on it, and - of course - cyrus 2.2.8
(from the po
