You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-user@james.apache.org by ch...@jpmchase.com on 2006/03/28 03:09:43 UTC

HA deployment of James

Hi, 

  We currently have James running in a production environment (on a linux 
blade). We are building out a HA environment by adding another blade that 
shares the same NAS head and hence has the NFS mount point. 

Is there a way to run James in a hold-cold manner so that if the primary 
fails the secondary can take over? Is there a way to run James in a 
clustered manner? Is the locking mechanism to read the emails from the 
filesystem based on in-memory locking or is there support for filesystem 
based locking? In other words is it possible for 2 james JVMs to go after 
the same set of records on the filesystem?

Thanks for your time. 

Rgds,
-Mouli


IB Arch: CBB NY
 
 
 
,: Chandramouli.Narayanan@jpmorgan.com
(: +1 212-622-3734
GDP: 622-3734
È: +1 201-637-3603

 
 

Re: HA deployment of James

Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
This is a branch that support distributed locking:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/james-ha

If you are a programmer it should not be difficult to port the 
distributed lock patch to the current release.

Stefano

chandramouli.narayanan@jpmchase.com wrote:
>   We currently have James running in a production environment (on a linux 
> blade). We are building out a HA environment by adding another blade that 
> shares the same NAS head and hence has the NFS mount point. 
> 
> Is there a way to run James in a hold-cold manner so that if the primary 
> fails the secondary can take over? Is there a way to run James in a 
> clustered manner? Is the locking mechanism to read the emails from the 
> filesystem based on in-memory locking or is there support for filesystem 
> based locking? In other words is it possible for 2 james JVMs to go after 
> the same set of records on the filesystem?



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org


Re: HA deployment of James

Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Norman Maurer wrote:
> Would this not a great feature to include in james ?

If anyone find a way to include it in a unobtrusive/modular way that 
does not bind us to specific licenses yes.

I'm satidfied by the failover/cluster/high availability provided by the 
multiple MX support of the SMTP protocol.

SMTP is one of the few protocols that provides such solutions as part of 
the specification.

This doesn't mean that we don't need james-ha: I just think that it is 
less important than for other services.

Stefano


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org


Re: HA deployment of James

Posted by Norman Maurer <nm...@spam-box.de>.
Thats right mx do a good job for such thinks.. But a failover solution
whould be nice too..

bye

Am Mittwoch, den 29.03.2006, 19:51 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
> Norman Maurer wrote:
> > Would this not a great feature to include in james ?
> 
> If anyone find a way to include it in a unobtrusive/modular way that 
> does not bind us to specific licenses yes.
> 
> I'm satidfied by the failover/cluster/high availability provided by the 
> multiple MX support of the SMTP protocol.
> 
> SMTP is one of the few protocols that provides such solutions as part of 
> the specification.
> 
> This doesn't mean that we don't need james-ha: I just think that it is 
> less important than for other services.
> 
> Stefano
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
> 
> !EXCUBATOR:2,442ac9f2101161374753664!


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org


Re: HA deployment of James

Posted by Norman Maurer <nm...@spam-box.de>.
Would this not a great feature to include in james ?

bye

Am Mittwoch, den 29.03.2006, 13:44 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
> This is a branch that support distributed locking:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/james-ha
> 
> If you are a programmer it should not be difficult to port the 
> distributed lock patch to the current release.
> 
> Stefano
> 
> chandramouli.narayanan@jpmchase.com wrote:
> >   We currently have James running in a production environment (on a linux 
> > blade). We are building out a HA environment by adding another blade that 
> > shares the same NAS head and hence has the NFS mount point. 
> > 
> > Is there a way to run James in a hold-cold manner so that if the primary 
> > fails the secondary can take over? Is there a way to run James in a 
> > clustered manner? Is the locking mechanism to read the emails from the 
> > filesystem based on in-memory locking or is there support for filesystem 
> > based locking? In other words is it possible for 2 james JVMs to go after 
> > the same set of records on the filesystem?
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
> 
> !EXCUBATOR:2,442a756c93051489121780!


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org


R: HA deployment of James

Posted by Marcello Marangio <m....@tno.it>.
Hi.
In one word: no
James doesn't support the failover mechanism as it is, at the moment.
We have the same problem and we are going to use the following
configuration:
- 2 James instances with a loadbalancer.
- A pop3 lock patch we developed (for a single james)
- Separated spool and outgoing repositories
- Common inbox repository.

If an instance fails (i.e. telnet on 25 and on 110 dies), a daemon copies
the spool from an instance to the other and it should keep going.

Hope it helps
Cheers
Marcello

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: chandramouli.narayanan@jpmchase.com 
> [mailto:chandramouli.narayanan@jpmchase.com] 
> Inviato: martedì 28 marzo 2006 3.10
> A: server-user@james.apache.org
> Oggetto: HA deployment of James
> 
> Hi, 
> 
>   We currently have James running in a production environment 
> (on a linux blade). We are building out a HA environment by 
> adding another blade that shares the same NAS head and hence 
> has the NFS mount point. 
> 
> Is there a way to run James in a hold-cold manner so that if 
> the primary fails the secondary can take over? Is there a way 
> to run James in a clustered manner? Is the locking mechanism 
> to read the emails from the filesystem based on in-memory 
> locking or is there support for filesystem based locking? In 
> other words is it possible for 2 james JVMs to go after the 
> same set of records on the filesystem?
> 
> Thanks for your time. 
> 
> Rgds,
> -Mouli
> 
> 
> IB Arch: CBB NY
>  
>  
>  
> ,: Chandramouli.Narayanan@jpmorgan.com
> (: +1 212-622-3734
> GDP: 622-3734
> È: +1 201-637-3603
> 
>  
>  


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org