!
--- Marc Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John Madden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 8:53 AM
> > To: Marc Powell
> > Cc: squirrelmail-users@lists.sourceforge.net; Marc Powell
> >
THANK YOU!
> > > work and I only say should because I personally haven't tried
> storing
> > > PHP session information on an NFS share before. There was some
> recent
> >
> > Then how do you share your session data between more than one web
> server?
> > You have session data in a database?
>
>
> I have not experienced any performance problems with that exact setup. I would
say having 36942 email accounts is a pretty good pool to gather data from. I've
used a similar setup with >50,000 accounts as well. It sounds to me that you may
have had some configuration or hardware issue that you di
Wow, must be nice to have that kind of money. :) How does a _switch_ know
how to maintain session data for the _application_ layer in _front_ of a web
server?? Sounds nice anyway. :)
That's old hat on the Foundry ServerIrons & Extreme Networks gear...
---
> -Original Message-
> From: John Madden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 8:53 AM
> To: Marc Powell
> Cc: squirrelmail-users@lists.sourceforge.net; Marc Powell
> Subject: RE: [SM-USERS] Re: Load Balancing and session side effect
>
> > Wh
> If I have more than one IMAP server (at least on different machines), then
> how else do I point all IMAP servers to the mail spool beside
> NFS/GFS/AFS/etc? The connection from clients (SM, etc) to IMAP will of
> course be regular IMAP connections/protocol. Eventually, we have our eye on
> Per
> What is your technical reason for this suggestion and admonition? I've
> been storing mail on NFS servers successfully for almost 10 years now
> with tens of thousands of active users. I've not experienced any
> problems yet and I don't expect to.
We tried it over a weekend; NFS performance with
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:squirrelmail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of email builder
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 1:01 AM
> To: squirrelmail-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: RE: [SM-USERS] Re: Load Balancing and session side effect
&
> > > but for
> > > heaven's sake, don't point your imapd at an NFS export.
> >
> > If I have more than one IMAP server (at least on different machines),
> then
> > how else do I point all IMAP servers to the mail spool beside
> > NFS/GFS/AFS/etc? The connection from clients (SM, etc) to IMAP wil
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:squirrelmail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of email builder
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 7:36 PM
> To: John Madden
> Cc: squirrelmail-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [SM-USERS] Re: Load Balancing an
--- John Madden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We are a small biz that wants to start implementing clustering of our
> > services, but not sure if LVS is necessary just yet. We are starting
> with
> > just two boxes with both HTTPD/SquirrelMail and MTA/IMAP on both boxes
> with
> > NFS-based ba
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:squirrelmail-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Madden
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:37 PM
> To: email builder
> Cc: squirrelmail-users@lists.sourceforge.net; email builder
> Subject: Re: [SM-USERS] R
> We are a small biz that wants to start implementing clustering of our
> services, but not sure if LVS is necessary just yet. We are starting with
> just two boxes with both HTTPD/SquirrelMail and MTA/IMAP on both boxes with
> NFS-based backend on a 3rd machine. We'll put all mail spools and S
13 matches
Mail list logo
