[Dovecot] director lmtp -> smtp problem
jtl+dovecot at uvm.edu
Thu Mar 15 19:23:01 EET 2012
On 3/15/12 8:25 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-15 at 07:50 -0400, Jim Lawson wrote:
>> On 3/15/12 6:02 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>> On 15.3.2012, at 3.24, Jim Lawson wrote:
>>>> We have a 2-node director setup which front-ends for 4 nodes which share
>>>> a clustered filesystem (GFS). All nodes run Dovecot 2.0.18.
>>>> Mar 14 20:40:38 imapdir2 dovecot: lmtp(10692): Panic: file
>>>> lmtp-proxy.c: line 376 (lmtp_proxy_output_timeout): assertion failed:
>>> I pretty much rewrote the LMTP proxying code in v2.1, so there's a very good chance that it's already been fixed.
>> I'll give it a shot. For the purposes of doing a rolling upgrade, is it
>> reasonable to expect a 2.0.18 director to peer with a 2.1.1 director for
>> the duration, or should I split-brain them during the upgrade?
> I'm almost certain that v2.1.1 talks compatible protocol with v2.0. The
> current hg version has some extra features, but it doesn't use them
> until all of the directors have upgraded to the new version.
Trying with v2.1.2 (peer is v2.0.18):
Mar 15 13:15:53 imapdir2 dovecot: director: Panic: file director.c: line
295 (director_sync): assertion failed: (!dir->ring_synced || (dir->left
== NULL && dir->right == NULL))
Mar 15 13:15:53 imapdir2 dovecot: director: Fatal: master:
service(director): child 513 killed with signal 6 (core not dumped)
Mar 15 13:15:53 imapdir2 dovecot: director: Error: Director
Which is OK, I can run them split-brained (rules in iptables to prevent
directors from talking) while I move users around. It'll mean poor
performance for GFS for the duration, but that's better than an outage.
The good news is, the lmtp problem I wrote about above appears to be
fixed. Thanks !!!
More information about the dovecot