similar to: New director features

On 15 May 2018, at 12.06, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > > If you look at .176's error log, do you see an error about "director_consistent_hashing settings differ between directors"? Have you set director_consistent_hashing=yes in the old directors? That is needed now, because the old non-consistent-hashing method is obsoleted. Unfortunately there's no easy

> On 6 May 2018, at 8.46, Niels Kobsch?tzki <niels at kobschaetzki.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a setup with several dovecot-servers (2.2.35) and I use dovecot > proxy. I upgraded one server to 2.3.1 and got the configs fixed so far > that it started again. But when I tried to add it into the proxying > again with "doveadm director add" I see the

Hi, I have a setup with 3 Dovecot Director v2.2.36 and director_consistent_hashing = yes ;-) Now I would like to upgrade to 2.3.7, first only Director and after also Backend. Can works fine a ring of director with mixed 2.2 and 2.3 version? Mi idea is to setup a new Director server with 2.3, stop one server with 2.2 and insert the new 2.3 in the current ring to check if works fine. If all

Il 18/07/19 21:42, Timo Sirainen ha scritto: > On 18 Jul 2019, at 11.44, Alessio Cecchi via dovecot > <dovecot at dovecot.org <mailto:dovecot at dovecot.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have a setup with 3 Dovecot Director v2.2.36 and >> director_consistent_hashing = yes ;-) >> >> Now I would like to upgrade to 2.3.7, first only Director

Hi, I have a setup with several dovecot-servers (2.2.35) and I use dovecot proxy. I upgraded one server to 2.3.1 and got the configs fixed so far that it started again. But when I tried to add it into the proxying again with "doveadm director add" I see the following in the logfiles: May 6 07:19:30 host dovecot: director: Warning: Director xxx.xxx.xxx.176:9090/out disconnected us with

On 18 Jul 2019, at 11.44, Alessio Cecchi via dovecot <dovecot at dovecot.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a setup with 3 Dovecot Director v2.2.36 and director_consistent_hashing = yes ;-) > > Now I would like to upgrade to 2.3.7, first only Director and after also Backend. > > Can works fine a ring of director with mixed 2.2 and 2.3 version? > > Mi idea is to

> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 24 Feb 2017, at 0.08, Mark Moseley <moseleymark at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > As someone who is about to begin the process of moving from maildir to >> > mdbox on NFS (and therefore just about to start the 'director-ization' >> of >> >

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > On 24 Feb 2017, at 0.08, Mark Moseley <moseleymark at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > As someone who is about to begin the process of moving from maildir to > > mdbox on NFS (and therefore just about to start the 'director-ization' of > > everything) for ~6.5m mailboxes, I'm

In our experience. A ring with more of 4 servers is bad, we have sync problems everyone. Using 4 or less works perfect. Em 24 de fev de 2017 4:30 PM, "Mark Moseley" <moseleymark at gmail.com> escreveu: > > > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote: > > > >> On 24 Feb 2017, at 0.08, Mark Moseley <moseleymark at

Hello dovecot community, first of all: dovecot ist great! ;) ...nevertheless I?ve got some problems to get my director scenario running as needed/expected :( My scenario: I?d like to configure two dovecot backends, without the need for multiple dovecot instances. Both backend servers are active/active and act on top of a glusterfs storage, which implies the need for dovecot director. As

I just noticed this error in my logs: director: Error: doveadm not compatible with this server (mixed old and new binaries?) director: Error: director(10.161.192.28:541/right): Wrong protocol in socket (director-doveadm vs director) The first error I removed by changing director_doveadm_port = 541 to director_doveadm_port = 542 Not really sure why that fixed it. The second error I

Hello, using Dovecot 2.2.9 and a setup with directors and backends. The communication between directors and backends needs to be TLS secured. The director config contains a list of hostnames for the backends. (implicit list because of multiple A/AAAA records for a single hostname or explicit list of several host names) On connection setup from a client the director connects to the selected

Timo - I upgraded to 2.1.10 on our director servers two nights ago and apart from errors associated with the directors processes restarting everything looked great for ~24 hours until I failed our the real servers last night to update the nfs mount options for the spools. I followed the suggested procedure for each backend server, just run on one of the directors, which seemed to work as

Hi, we have a problem with our director proxy configuration. When we run on proxy server the doveadm command with -A switch, fails with the error: # doveadm -D quota get -A doveadm(user1): Debug: auth input: user=user1 proxy starttls=any-cert doveadm(user1): Error: Proxy is missing destination host doveadm: Error: Failed to iterate through some users If we execute the command with a single

I've had 2x director ring up and running with production load on 2.1.8 with around 10,000 active connections for two weeks and everything has been working great - until this morning. There isn't anything obvious in the logs beyond the fact that the director connections started bouncing. It was not resolved by reloads or restarts or an upgrade to 2.1.9 (only the directors.) I've

As someone who is about to begin the process of moving from maildir to mdbox on NFS (and therefore just about to start the 'director-ization' of everything) for ~6.5m mailboxes, I'm curious if anyone can share any experiences with it. The list is surprisingly quiet about this subject, and articles on google are mainly just about setting director up. I've yet to stumble across an

hi, we are using the dovecot-rc1 version, and we are testing the director service, as there is little documentation on this service, a pair of questions.. if i'm not wrong, the proxy_maybe it's not implemented, yet? will be soon? this limitation does not allow use the same two directors servers like mail backend servers? the fairlure of one director server it's automatically

Hello, I'm build system with two director/proxy and dual stack network (or IPv6-only local services) http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Director say "This also means that a single director ring must use either IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, but not both at the same time." OK All servers have 2 interface (public and local network), and all dual stack IPv4/IPv6, imap/pop (mail) and lmtp (mx) proxy run

Hi, still using 2.2.9, I've two directors, and these directors use both IPv4/IPv6 addresses. `host directors.<domain>` returns one A and AAA for each of the two directors: directors.<domain> has address 149.x.y.96 (director1) directors.<domain> has address 149.x.y.97 (director2) directors.<domain> has IPv6 address

Something I noticed on a 2.1.7 director test cluster (two directors, three backends): 'doveadm proxy kick user' will kick all connections for that user on that director only. Any additional connections on other directors will remain active unless the command is run on all directors. Are the proxy and director sub-commands intended to be separate and distinct in their operation? If so,