[Dovecot] NFS random redirects
Hello,
Dovecot documentation states that the "random redirects to multiple servers" NFS solution is to be avoided and I'm investigation the actual risks of it and a way to put it to test.
I'm running dovecot-1.2.6 with Maildir (indexes, mailboxes and control files are all on NFS) and I'm using procmail instead of deliver as the LDA.
Documentation says : "Dovecot locks the maildir while doing modifications to it or while looking for new messages in it" and then mention the "dovecot-uidlist.lock" dotlock file.
a) if that file fcntl'ed in addition (i.e. dotlocked + fcntled or just dotlocked) ?
b) is that file THE way to lock the Maildir mentionned above or is it just something else used only for updating that particular file (i.e. is Maildir locked in some way + dovecot-uidlist.lock created or just dovecot-uidlist.lock created) ?
Documentation says : "NFS caching is a big problem when multiple computers are accessing the same mailbox simultaneously"
I guess it's because of the dotlocks files and not fcntl locking ? Is there anything else than dovecot-uidlist which is dotlocked ? If yes, is it dotlocked only or dotlocked and fcntled ?
Documentation says : "Dovecot v1.1 flushes NFS caches when needed if you set mail_nfs_storage=yes"
How can a program flush the NFS caches ? By which (system) call ?
Documentation says : "Besides the NFS cache problems described above, mailbox contents can't be cached as well in the memory either."
Is it about in-memory indexes or part of indexes loaded into memory ?5. How can I torture-test concurrent access to the same mailbox through 2 dovecot servers ? I don't see imaptest.c anymore on http://dovecot.org/tools but I see 2 nfs_test ? Is there some command line options I should use ?
- when and why can a random redirect to multiple server can cause mailbox corruption ? On flags only or on content as well ?
Thanks
-- Thomas Hummel | Institut Pasteur <hummel@pasteur.fr> | Pôle informatique - systèmes et réseau
On Oct 19, 2009, at 9:35 AM, Thomas Hummel wrote:
If you do it, you'll most likely see some random index related errors.
No fcntl.
Maildir is then locked for Dovecot against doing any modifications.
Procmail will ignore it, and that's fine.
No, it's because of NFS caching.. Like if Dovecot writes to
dovecot.index.log first and then dovecot.index, it expects that it's
not possible that a later read sees the dovecot.index change, but not
the dovecot.index.log change. But because of NFS caching this is
possible, and "corrupted index files" errors will occur. There are
many other similar issues.
That's the main problem. There is no reliable way to flush NFS
caches.. So I've added some highly OS-specific code that works most of
the time, but not perfectly. It works best with Linux.
I was thinking about OS's filesystem caching in general, so all mail
files and such.
imaptest exists now in http://imapwiki.org/ImapTest
Pretty much randomly..
On flags only or on content as well ?
Actual mail content should be safe. Unless you just happen to get such
a cache file corruption that Dovecot doesn't notice it and sends some
broken headers to IMAP client.
The long term fix for this is http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2009-August/041983.html
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:42:08PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Thanks for the answers Timo,
I understand random redirect is not a good idea but I'm trying to evaluate the damage it can do.
If you do it, you'll most likely see some random index related errors.
But are index related errors recoverable (does dovecot notice and fix it dynamically ?) or will they cause client-side corruption ?
How bad would that corruption be ? (like fetching wrong message, since index store nextuid as well ? setting wrong flag ? ...) and how could a client fix it ?
caches.. So I've added some highly OS-specific code that works most of
the time, but not perfectly. It works best with Linux.
Ouch! I run dovecot on FreeBSD ;-(
imaptest exists now in http://imapwiki.org/ImapTest
Thanks. Sorry I didn't find it. Do you have any suggestion to test specifically nfs corruption chances ?
If that happened, with Maildir, the actual content on disk on server wouldn't be corrupted I guess, so I would that be recoverable on the client ?
The long term fix for this is http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2009-August/041983.html
Thanks.
-- Thomas Hummel | Institut Pasteur <hummel@pasteur.fr> | Pôle informatique - systèmes et réseau
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:47:25AM +0200, Thomas Hummel wrote:
Actual mail content should be safe.
So you seem to say that indexes files would probably get "corrupted" but that clients wouldn't notice it ?
I'm trying to figure out how to use imap-test test script-ing to test this. Any suggestion what the test file should look like ?
Thanks.
-- Thomas Hummel | Institut Pasteur <hummel@pasteur.fr> | Pôle informatique - systèmes et réseau
On Oct 20, 2009, at 4:47 AM, Thomas Hummel wrote:
It's unlikely that anything bad happens, but who knows. Random
unnoticed corruption can do pretty much anything.
FreeBSD's NFS seems to be among the worst..
Not really. Just running the stress test on the same mailbox in 2+ NFS
clients should start showing the problems somewhat soon if they are any.
Right.
so I would that be recoverable on the client ?
If anything else fails, clearing client caches (or recreating the
account on client side) should work, yes.
2009/10/21 Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
Our current setup uses two NFS mounts accessed simultaneously by two servers. Our load balancing tries to keep a user on the same server whenever possible. Initially we just had roundrobin load balancing which led to index corruption. The problems we've had with that corruption have simply been that some messages are displayed twice or not displayed at all in mail clients. Deletion of the corrupted index allowed Dovecot to recreate it correctly, so the client can't do anything about it. You'd probably have to do it manually or have some sort of web interface for users to do it themselves.
I certainly wouldn't use NFS with multiple servers accessing it again for Dovecot. Looking at a clustered FS on SAN solution at the moment.
Cheers Guy
-- Don't just do something...sit there!
On 10/21/09 8:59 AM, "Guy" <wyldfury@gmail.com> wrote:
As a contrasting data point, we run NFS + random redirects with almost no problems. We host ~7TB of mail for ~45k users with a peak connection count of 10k IMAP connections, and maybe a handful of POP3. We make absolutely no effort to make sure that connections from the same user or IP are routed to the same server.
We do occasionally see index corruption, but it is almost always related to the user going over quota, and Dovecot being unable to write to the logs. If we wanted to solve this problem, we could move the indexes off to a second tier of storage. It is a very minor issue though. Locking has not been a problem at all.
I will say that this may be a situation where you get what you pay for. We've invested a fair amount of money in our storage system (Netapp), server pool (RHEL5), and networking technology (F5 BigIP LTM). Our mail is spread across 16 volumes on two filers, and we are careful to stress-test the servers and storage backend before rolling out major upgrades.
That is not of course to neglect the value of things that are free - like Dovecot! Many thanks to Timo for maintaining such a wonderful piece of software!
-Brad
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:39:22AM -0700, Brandon Davidson wrote:
As a contrasting data point, we run NFS + random redirects with almost no problems.
Thanks for your answer as well.
What mailbox format are you using ?
-- Thomas Hummel | Institut Pasteur <hummel@pasteur.fr> | Pôle informatique - systèmes et réseau
Thomas,
On 10/22/09 1:29 AM, "Thomas Hummel" <hummel@pasteur.fr> wrote:
We switched to Maildir a while back due to performance issues with mbox, primarily centered around locking and the cost of rewriting the entire file when one message changes. Haven't looked back since.
Our config is pretty vanilla - users in LDAP (via pam_ldap), standard UNIX home directory layout, Sendmail on the MTA hosts.
-Brad
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 04:59:50PM +0100, Guy wrote:
Our current setup uses two NFS mounts accessed simultaneously by two servers.
[...]
Thanks for sharing your experience. Are you using mbox, dbox or maildir ? What % of IMAP and POP3 clients ?
-- Thomas Hummel | Institut Pasteur <hummel@pasteur.fr> | Pôle informatique - systèmes et réseau
participants (4)
-
Brandon Davidson
-
Guy
-
Thomas Hummel
-
Timo Sirainen