Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:45:47 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fabrizio=20Ravazzini?= <freefabri@yahoo.it> To: Chris Shenton <chris@shenton.org> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Mail Toaster CLUSTER Message-ID: <20010730134547.513.qmail@web20104.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <87puaiy2zg.fsf@thanatos.shenton.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
So I understood that's better Two MX with balance.sourceforge.net wich shares the same Raid Disk Array for the Maildirs? --- Chris Shenton <chris@shenton.org> ha scritto: > Fabrizio Ravazzini <freefabri@yahoo.it> writes: > > > > Replacing the vqalive software with some load > > > balancing with failover > > > mechanisms, such as balance > > > (http://balance.sourceforge.net) or any of > > > the commercial products. > > > > And for balance.sourceforge.net, does it shares a > > single Ip? > > What's the point of the VQalive box? It seems to me > it introduces > another single point of failure. Perhaps if you had > two of them and > used VRRPd you'd avoid the SPOF. > > But really, if you eliminate the VQalive box and set > both MX boxes are > equal-weights in the DNS, then inbound mail will > automatically > load-balance to them. > > I guess I don't see the added value of the VQalive > box and only see a > negative. ______________________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Il tuo indirizzo gratis e per sempre @yahoo.it su http://mail.yahoo.it To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010730134547.513.qmail>