[Dovecot] Re: Dovecot servers / SAN

[Mustafa A. Hashmi]

On 6/20/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> >
> > Axel: why did you move away from GFS? Any particular reason?
>
> The customer I was working for was an early adopter of GFS 6.1 (aka
> GFS on 2.6) in the hopes that Debian would pick it up, since Debian is
> the Linux distribution he is running.
>
> When it became apparent that this would not happen within the
> project's time constraints he had to choose between a cluttered server
> os landscape vs non having active-active cluster filesystem setups and
> due to staff constraints chose to freeze the GFS project
> altogether. That wasn't dovecot or in general mail related.
>
> So unless you face the same constraints, e.g. run a distribution w/o a
> cluster file system and would have to do it yourself from scratch,
> going GFS (or OCFS2) is a good idea for dovecot (and exim which was
> the MTA choice).
>
> I would recommend RHEL4/GFS/dovecot/exim (+ spamassassin/clamav and
> friends) for a nice scalable cluster solution. In fact the customer's
> and ATrpms' mail setup is the one I created for the GFS cluster, it
> now just has one active node (the customer for the reasons above and
> ATrpms due to not having a SAN :).

Thanks for the detailed reply. I am looking at NFS given Lustre's
design and the fact that we have to run with Debian as well. I still
don't see GFS in debian stable -- may try a source build (having taken
a similar route with Lustre).

Regards,
-- 
Mustafa A. Hashmi
mahashmi at gmail.com
mh at stderr.net