On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 10:44:25 +0200 Sami Ketola <sami.ketola at dovecot.fi> wrote:> > On 4 Nov 2017, at 10.31, Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw.ml at ithnet.com> > > wrote: > > > > On Sat, 4 Nov 2017 01:57:31 +0200 > > Sami Ketola <sami.ketola at dovecot.fi> wrote: > >> Again that does not answer my question why? Why do you want all the > >> locking problems and multi-access problems that come with setup like > >> that? What is the actual problem that you are trying to solve? > >> > >> Sami > > > > Really, I can hardly believe you don't now large loadbalancing ISP setups > > with multiple nodes per single service ...? > > The simple problem: massive numbers of emails > > Nope. Has never been done. Has never been recommended way. You will get more > problems with that setup that you are seeking to solve. > > Use multiple dovecot backends with director ring in front and switch to lmtp > delivery via the director ring if you have scalability problems. Then you > can just increase number of backends in case they are overloaded. > > SamiSorry to say this setup works flawlessly for years. The only addition we will make now is to do the delivery with dovecot-lda. Everything else (including multiple dovecot pop/imap servers) will stay as is. Hopefully dovecot-lda does not fiddle around with the indexes too much, as we then would have to delete this part of the code out. It is not needed as we found out during the last 10 years of delivering mails into the maildirs by atomic rename action while dovecot is presenting them over imap. -- Regards, Stephan
> On 5 Nov 2017, at 12.55, Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw.ml at ithnet.com> wrote: > Sorry to say this setup works flawlessly for years. The only addition we > will make now is to do the delivery with dovecot-lda. Everything else > (including multiple dovecot pop/imap servers) will stay as is. > Hopefully dovecot-lda does not fiddle around with the indexes too much, as we > then would have to delete this part of the code out. It is not needed as we > found out during the last 10 years of delivering mails into the maildirs by > atomic rename action while dovecot is presenting them over imap.Feel free to do anything you like. I'm just going to mention to people later reading these from the achives not to take this kind of strange hack as an example of recommended dovecot clustering. Instead consider it as an opposite of any best practices cluster setup. Sami
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 08:37:11 +0200 Sami Ketola <sami.ketola at dovecot.fi> wrote:> > On 5 Nov 2017, at 12.55, Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw.ml at ithnet.com> > > wrote: Sorry to say this setup works flawlessly for years. The only > > addition we will make now is to do the delivery with dovecot-lda. > > Everything else (including multiple dovecot pop/imap servers) will stay as > > is. Hopefully dovecot-lda does not fiddle around with the indexes too > > much, as we then would have to delete this part of the code out. It is not > > needed as we found out during the last 10 years of delivering mails into > > the maildirs by atomic rename action while dovecot is presenting them over > > imap. > > > Feel free to do anything you like. I'm just going to mention to people later > reading these from the achives not to take this kind of strange hack as an > example of recommended dovecot clustering. Instead consider it as an > opposite of any best practices cluster setup. > > SamiMaybe they are interested that it runs like charm ;-) Of course it is overly complex to let dovecot-lda look up the mail_location since we already know that when starting it, but at least it shows a nice output in the logs. Still we are not content with it touching/locking dovecot.index.log. If someone pointed at one location in the code where this could be disabled we would implement a new param for switching that off. -- Regards, Stephan