Mehmet CELIK wrote:
Hi, 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.
But, 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 the 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 Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
