As I said, I wouldn't bother with LVS, but there's no harm in doing so.
It just means you either have to use a fail-over pair of load balancers
in front of your mail cluster, or have each machine in the mail cluster
act as a fail-over load balancer and distribute connections to all the
machines (including itself). It just sounds like an unnecessary
complication.
And the outgoing mail going through a smart-host is a bottleneck on a
properly tuned system - it means that you have multiple machines to
handle incoming mail, but only one to handle outgoing mail. An "equal
peers" solution is far more scaleable.
Gordan
Mehmet CELIK wrote:
Thanx 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
> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:33:36 +0000
> From: gordan@xxxxxxxxxx
> To: linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Postfix active/active mail cluster
>
> 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
