From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Oct 7 14:29: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2555637B401 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alistair.scapegoats.org (alistair.scapegoats.org [64.40.92.44]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BF9243E75 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:28:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from denny@alistair.scapegoats.org) Received: by alistair.scapegoats.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B7192243; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:28:57 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:28:57 -0500 From: 'Denny Reiter' To: "Lapinski, Michael (Research)" Cc: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Server out of space -- Need suggestions Message-ID: <20021007212857.GM30821@reiters.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Uptime: 4:15PM up 41 days, 13:09, 8 users, load averages: 0.02, 0.01, 0.00 X-Pooftas: No X-Message-Flag: This message flagged by The Department of Homeland Security X-PGP-Key: http://pgp.dtype.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x997F9D70 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:30:22PM -0400, Lapinski, Michael (Research) wrote: > Your not goign to keep them in sync, this is so you users > can recieve *all* of thier mail, regardless if your primary > mail server is up. It is quite easy to config netscape and > other mail clients to poll multiple pop servers for new mail. Don't take this personally, but I find that solution silly in reality. While it's quite possible technically and would definitely solve problems, getting a user to successfully configure one mail account and keep from screwing that up is hard enough. Tell them to configure multiples and their head will start spinning. > I was addressing topic that others had brought up with > using a netapp and sharing it between 2 boxes and having > one box grab the ip of the mail server if it went down. > Its great and all but like I said before, if your mail server > is built well then the network turns into the failure point. > And with the network being the failure point why bother having > redundant mail servers in the same physical location? Got a couple of hundred users? You can probably get away with taking down your mail server to add more RAM or upgrading your system. Got 10,000? You still might be able to get away with it in the wee hours of the morning if you are quick and lucky. Got 60,000? No way. You might be able to build one box and make it ultra-reliable and ultra-fast, but if things go sideways on you, you're screwed. Having multiple boxes taking care of things automagically not only will please your customers, but immensely improve your mental health. And the network being the failure point? That's why you have multiple circuits from different providers. -- Denny Reiter denny@reiters.org So I don't hurt your feelings: happydenny@reiters.org www.scapegoats.org Actually, Microsoft is sort of a mixture between the Borg and the Ferengi. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message