On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:04:06 +0100, Andrew Hutchings wrote:
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 22:44, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 14:13 -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
Is dovecot still considered unreliable when combined with NFS?
Is this true for mbox only, or Maildir as well?
If dovecot Is still considered unreliable with NFS, how about having a dovecot mode that would chain into procmail for delivery, so that dovecot doesn't (necessarily) have to reinvent that wheel?
I'm not sure what Procmail has to do with NFS unreliability. You can use Procmail to store the incoming messages, but the problems come when mailbox is actually being accessed with IMAP/POP3.
The problem isn't in either mbox or maildir, it's Dovecot's index files. It's of course possible to store indexes to local disk, but if you're using multiple servers you'll get worse performance whenever latest indexes can't be used.
Recent 1.0-tests should be somewhat usable with NFS too. I think someone in this list already is using it.
Yep we are, NFS server with 2x dovecot servers, mailboxes are Maildir and indexes are stored on local HDDs. Using Mysql master-slaves for user/pass.
Very reliable system, only real problem we had was when the NFS HDD failed.
We now have a redundancy for that too :) Timo has done some great work to get this kinda thing working.Regards Andrew
I'm happy to hear that this is only an index issue.
I guess what I meant to point out is, that procmail claims to be very NFS safe, and last time I built it, it had some sort of procedure for determining a safe way of operating over NFS for the system it was being built on.
procmail's "lockfile" program, or the NFS-safe logic within it, might be useable in dovecot....