similar to: Email backend monitor script for Director

Today I will try Dovecot Director for a setup using a Cluster Backend with GFS2 on rhel5, my question is if is Director stable for use in production for large sites, I know is mainly designed for NFS but I believe it will do the job also for a cluster filesystem like GFS2 and should solve the mail persistence problem with a node and locking issues. I plan to add a layer behind a load balancer to

We have done some benchmarking tests using dovecot 2.0.12 to find the best shared filesystem for hosting many users, here I share with you the results, notice the bad perfomance of all the shared filesystems against the local storage. Is there any specific optimization/tunning on dovecot for use GFS2 on rhel6??, we have configured the director to make the user mailbox persistent in a node, we will

Hi, all this days I'm testing a dovecot setup using lvs, director and a cluster email backend with two nodes using rhel5 and gfs2. In the two nodes of the email backend I configured mail location this way: mail_location = sdbox:/var/vmail/%d/%3n/%n/sdbox:INDEX=/var/indexes/%d/%3n/%n /var/vmail is shared clustered filesystem with GFS2 shared by node1 and node2 /var/indexes is a local

Centos CSGFS is at this time really outdated compared to current rh updates and fixes, is the centos team still giving support to this version???. Best regards

Hello list, we continue our tests using Dovecot on a RHEL 6.1 Cluster Backend with GFS2, also we are using dovecot as a Director for user node persistence, everything was ok until we started stress testing the solution with imaptest, we had many deadlocks, cluster filesystems corruptions and hangs, specially in index filesystem, we have configured the backend as if they were on a NFS like setup

Just that, wich is the recommended quota backend for sdbox in terms of performance and flexibility running a setup of virtual users with ldap??... thank's in advance...

I'm having a problem with dovecot ldap connection when ldap server is in another firewall zone, firewall kills the ldap connection after a determined period of inactivity, this is good from the firewall point of view but is bad for dovecot because it never knows the connections has been dropped, this creates longs timeouts in dovecot and finally it reconnects, meanwhile many users fails to

Hi list, I've been trying to update my csgfs stuff to 4.7 this week but I notice that current csgfs is built against kernel-2.6.9-78.0.1 and is required as a dependence, right now current kernel is 2.6.9-78.0.5 it would be great if csgfs can be rebuilt or updated to this, so dependences works ok??? Best regards

Hi list, any timeframe for the sync of csgfs in centos 4 with current kernel updates???. Best regards

Hi people, I have a setup configured using ldap, I have noticed that after a period of user inactivity if a client open connections to dovecot first attemps fails with this: Nov 16 19:34:43 cl05-02 dovecot: auth: Error: ldap(user at xxx.xx.xx,172.29.13.26): Connection appears to be hanging, reconnecting After the connections to ldap has been restablished everything starts working ok, is this a

Hi to all in the list, we are trying to do some tests lab for a large scale mail system having this requirements: - Scale to maybe 1million users(Only for testing). - Server side filters. - User quotas. - High concurrency. - High performance and High Availability. We plan to test this using RHEL5 and maybe RHEL6. As a storage we are going to use an HP EVA 8400 FC(8 GB/s) We defined this

Hi, Dovecot Director is used to keep a temporary user -> Dovecot backend server mapping. So, Director decides which backend handles each user and the user is always redirected to the same server. All user data is stored in shared storage (NFS). The Dovecot presentation featured during this webinar

As http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS describes, the main problem with NFS has always been caching problems. One NFS client changes two files, but another NFS client sees only one of the changes, which Dovecot then assumes is caused by corruption. The recommended solution has always been to redirect the same user to only a single server at the same time. User doesn't have to be permanently assigned

I'm working the kinks of a new director based setup for the eventual migration away from courier. At this point, with everything basically working I'm trying to ensure that things are properly monitored and I've run into an issue. There doesn't appear to be a way to get dovecot to tell if it is (or is not) connected and properly synced with the other director servers in the ring

Halo, Please can you explain why this is advantage over a hardware load balancer. I fail to see advantage if anything it add in more point of failure, with several hundred thousand user, we can ill afford to mess around or add to complexity, sometime keeping it simple is simply way to be, when use qmail/vpopmail, we never had one failure or problem, ever, we very proud of this record so our users.

I've got small numbers of connections moving through a load balancer configured in NAT mode. So I've got an iptables table called "nat", which has in it a line "-A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE" (lan connect is eth0, private lan inside the cluster is eth1). The load balancer is working; connections made to the virtual ip on that host do get routed to one of the

On 2014-12-01 19:56, anon_user at openmailbox.org wrote: >> Il 01/12/2014 17:11, rub zorghy ha scritto: >> Why Dovecot Director server isn't used to perform this without Dovecot >> proxy ? Thus, the load balancer (F5 Big-IP) can distribute requests >> based >> on IMAP protocol to Dovecot Director cluster. >> I think that the slide is just one example of a

Il 01/12/2014 17:11, rub zorghy ha scritto: > Why Dovecot Director server isn't used to perform this without Dovecot > proxy ? Thus, the load balancer (F5 Big-IP) can distribute requests based > on IMAP protocol to Dovecot Director cluster. I think that the slide is just one example of a scenario ,very complex. In real world, unless you do not have to segment users (some users use

Round-robin DNS last I checked can be fraught with issues. While doing something else I came up with this idea: Clients --> Load Balancer(HAProxy) --> Dovecot Proxy(DP) --> Dovecot Director(DD) --> MS1 / MS2. When DP checks say user100 it'll find a host=DD-POD1 that returns two IPs, those of the two DD that sit in front of POD1. This DD pair is the only pair in the ring and

Does Dovecot Director health monitoring of backend servers ? Or is poolmon (http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2010-August/051946.html) the best option for this? Maybe Ldirectord? Thanks! -- Thiago Henrique www.adminlinux.com.br