On 18.1.2012, at 20.51, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 07:58:31PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
--i.e. all the suggestions at http://wiki2.dovecot.org/NFS. Is that definitely not the case? Is there anything else (beyond moving to a director-based architecture) that can mitigate the risk of index corruption? In our case, incoming IMAP/POP are 'stuck' to servers based on IP persistence for a given amount of time, but incoming LDA is randomly distributed.
What's the problem with director-based architecture?
It hasn't been working reliably for lmtp in v2.0.
Yes, besides that :)
To quote yourself:
----8<----8<----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<----8<-----8<----8<----8<--
I think the way I originally planned LMTP proxying to work is simply too complex to work reliably, perhaps even if the code was bug-free. So instead of reading+writing DATA at the same time, this patch changes the DATA to be first read into memory or temp file, and then from there read and sent to the LMTP backends:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/raw-rev/51d87deb5c26----8<----8<----8<-----8<-----8<-----8<----8<-----8<----8<----8<--
unfortunately I haven't tested that patch, so I have no idea if it fixed the issues or not...
I'm not sure if that patch is useful or not. The important patch to fix it is http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.0/rev/71084b799a6c