Using multiple A records is good for performance balancing, but what if one of the systems fails?
Using your cocnfiguration, the delivering mail server has an "a" record and a single MX, so it wouldn't try the other mail server in the case of a failure, right?
Whereas, by listing multiple IPs and mx1/mx2, wouldn't the delivering mail server try the other address?
Thanks,
-Ben
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 16:02, you wrote:
I once did this and it worked great:
IN MX 10 mx.example.com.mx IN A 192.168.1.1 IN A 192.168.1.2
...etc. Perfect DNS load balancing.
Jack
Benjamin Smith wrote:
Currently, we have two mail relays for inbound messages, and a third for
POP.
The inbound messages go thru all the CPU-intensive anti-spam stuff, and
then
they relay it to the POP server for pickup.
Currently, one of these is the "primary", and the other is "secondary", and I'd like them to be considered more or less as equals, since the "primary" system is getting beaten pretty hard.
The DNS zone file says something like this:
############################### @isp.com
<SNIP> IN MX 100 mx1.isp.com. IN MX 1100 mx2.isp.com. <SNIP ################################
I seem to recall that I make them act as "equals" by simply changing this
to
############################### @isp.com
<SNIP> IN MX 100 mx1.isp.com. IN MX 100 mx2.isp.com. <SNIP ################################
so that they both get about the same amount of inbound messages. Has
anybody
here actually done this? How well does this work as far as failover if
either
system fails?
-Ben
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
- XEROX PARC slogan, circa 1978
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Benjamin Smith wrote:
Using multiple A records is good for performance balancing, but what if one of the systems fails?
Using your cocnfiguration, the delivering mail server has an "a" record and a single MX, so it wouldn't try the other mail server in the case of a failure, right?
Whereas, by listing multiple IPs and mx1/mx2, wouldn't the delivering mail server try the other address?
Thanks,
-Ben
On Tuesday 25 October 2005 16:02, you wrote:
I once did this and it worked great:
IN MX 10 mx.example.com.mx IN A 192.168.1.1 IN A 192.168.1.2
...etc. Perfect DNS load balancing.
Jack
Benjamin Smith wrote:
Currently, we have two mail relays for inbound messages, and a third for
POP.
The inbound messages go thru all the CPU-intensive anti-spam stuff, and
then
they relay it to the POP server for pickup.
Currently, one of these is the "primary", and the other is "secondary", and I'd like them to be considered more or less as equals, since the "primary" system is getting beaten pretty hard.
The DNS zone file says something like this:
############################### @isp.com
<SNIP> IN MX 100 mx1.isp.com. IN MX 1100 mx2.isp.com. <SNIP ################################
I seem to recall that I make them act as "equals" by simply changing this
to
############################### @isp.com
<SNIP> IN MX 100 mx1.isp.com. IN MX 100 mx2.isp.com. <SNIP ################################
so that they both get about the same amount of inbound messages. Has
anybody
here actually done this? How well does this work as far as failover if
either
system fails?
-Ben
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
- XEROX PARC slogan, circa 1978
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
In addition to the entire Cyrus system, we have 3 MX records. All are set to 0 with the exception of the lists server, which is set to 10.
-- Nathaniel Hall, GSEC
-
Benjamin Smith -
Nathaniel Hall