> The easiest way to have fault tolerance would be to
> match up your IMAP servers in an active/active setup
> where each IMAP server has another server that's
> willing to take over if a failure occurs.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread this seems a
rather costly approach for what little
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Josh Huber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Distributed File Systems
>Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:28:41 -0400
>From: Josh Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>"D
On Sun, 2002-10-20 at 22:33, David Lang wrote:
> another option to consider.
>
> I have heard of people hacking cyrus to store it's data in a SQL database
> instead of a raw filesystem. if you do this you can then invoke the full
> set of SQL replication capabilities (including better transaction
Paul Dekkers said:
> AFS was commercial I thought,
http://www.openafs.org/
--
Brian
-- David Chait <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is rumored to have mumbled on
Freitag, 18. Oktober 2002 23:23 Uhr -0700 regarding Distributed File
Systems:
Hi,
Has anyone here looked into or had experience with Distributed File
Systems (AFS, NFS, CODA, etc) applied to mail partitions to allow for
cluset
Hi,
I havent looked at these filesystems so closely, but I want at around
the same thing as you I guess: if the main imap-server fails, let
another one take over the job (e.g. with IP takeover).
In my opinion maybe the NNTP support provides something in the future:
it has the possibility to sy
