dovecot - Nov 2009 - Fwd: Re: Dovecot and SATA Backend

I suppose this was for the list...
-- 
Joseba Torre. Vicegerencia de TICs, ?rea de Explotaci?n
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Stewart Dean <sdean at bard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot and SATA Backend
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:07:31 -0500
Size: 2870
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20091118/78e4f559/attachment-0002.mht>

> If one had a network-based NFS service of the user mail data, that would
> mean that
> 1) it would be easy to upgrade servers (data wouldn't move as it would
have
> to if it was owned either by being directly connected to the mail server or
> connected over iSCSI)
True for directly connected storage, but nor for iSCSI.  iSCSI storage is
remote and would not have to move if the mail server is updated, only if
the iSCSI server is replaced.
> 2) If other servers access the mail data, this is a load on the mail server
> if again, as above, it owns the disk resource either by direct attach or
> iSCSI.
Again, correct for local storage but not for iSCSI.
>  Better it would seem to me if there was a dedicated NFS network-based
> server that all clients could get to....
It's not the best idea to have multiple clients messing independently with
your mail spool.  We did that until this year, and I'm glad to be done with
it...  Now all mail access comes via dovecot, and my life is much easier...
> Comments on that?
I don't think you understand iSCSI very well...  But your arguments about
direct attached versus NFS are solid.

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

This message is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind,
either expressed or implied.  Use this message at your own risk.