As I said, I wouldn't bother with LVS, but there's no harm in doing so.
machines (including itself). It just sounds like an unnecessary
complication.
handle incoming mail, but only one to handle outgoing mail. An "equal
peers" solution is far more scaleable.
Post by Mehmet CELIKThanx for information. Just, I said be carrefull. My organization is below.
LVS -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
MAIL1 -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
MAIL2 -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
MAIL3 -> 78.189.X.X {25,143}
SMTPGW -> 78.189.Y.Y {All outgoing traffic}
sh $ host -t ptr 78.189.Y.Y
Y.Y.189.78.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer xxxx.exampledomain.com
--
Mehmet CELIK
Istanbul/TURKEY
Post by Mehmet CELIKDate: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:33:36 +0000
Subject: Re: [Linux-cluster] Postfix active/active mail cluster
Post by Mehmet CELIKHi, of course, you can do this. so, each node on *LVS will respond
active.
Not much point - DNS load balancing works just fine for a mail server.
Or you can use the cluser resource manager to migrate the IP of a downed
node to another node.
Post by Mehmet CELIKBut, this is different from storage subject. The IMAP don't be
problem. But, the SMTP can be a problem. Because, you have dynamic
ip on
Post by Mehmet CELIKPost by Mehmet CELIKthe RBL checks. For this, you must use smtp gateway. All outgoing smtp
traffic must be from a single IP.
I don't remember anyone saying that dynamic IPs are used. Just because
the mail cluster has a different IP for each host doesn't make them
dynamic. RBLs that block dynamic IPs largely only block
dial-up/broadband dynamic IP ranges, and I don't thing the original
poster ever suggested that this is the sort of range the mail cluster
he's building will be on.
There is no RFC that states that all mail from a domain must come from
one IP. Having multi-homed mail servers with multiple IPs is perfectly
RFC compliant. Google do it, for example, as do many other mail service
providers. The main issue with this is that there are people who use
fundamentally broken anti-spam measures like greylisting, which fall
over flat on their face when consecutive delivery attempts come from
different IPs. Breaking your mail cluster scalability to work around
someone's broken mail system is, IMO, not the correct solution.
However, as I mentioned in the other post on this thread, if you make
the mail spool local rather than shared, then the outgoing mail will not
bounce between the nodes - it will remain on the same node until
successfully delivered (or bounced). This works around the problem of
broken mail systems.
Gordan
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.
<http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster