Craig White wrote: >On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 17:17 -0500, Nathaniel Hall wrote: > > >>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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I actually recommend using a Cyrus system. We are able to handle about >>20,000 accounts with the following servers: >> >>3 front ends (Horde, IMAP, Spam Assassin, SMTP, etc load-balanced at the >>firewall) >>2 storage servers (actually stores the e-mails) >>1 MySQL server (Used for Horde) >>1 list server (for MailMan) >> >>This can easily be added to. We use it a lot so that we can remove a >>system from the load balance and upgrade one server at a time. We can >>eventually take all but one out and have them upgraded and then swap the >>last one with all of the new servers. It appears to be seamless to the >>users and sure helps with being able to do maintenance at any time of >>day and you don't have to have overly powerful servers to get it working >>well. >> >> >---- >Let me see if I get this straight - OP asks about multiple MTA & dns/MX >records and your answer is about MUA's and delivery agents. Good thing >at least we all speak English. > >OP - your logic is good - should work. I hesitated to answer since I >have no first hand experience with multiple MX records of same value for >priority. > >Craig > > > > His e-mail, as stated in the Subject and implied in the message was about load balancing. I gave a summary of my current setup that is almost completely load balanced and redundant. As a security administrator, I partially based my recommendation on the fact that you can (fairly easily) upgrade systems without taking the mail system down. I also see that as being part of load balancing (if one isn't there, the other takes over the load). -- Nathaniel Hall, GSEC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051025/b9827cba/attachment-0005.html>