JAMES and Load Balancer (SLOW CONNECT)

[Ian Huynh <ia...@hubspan.com>]

We have a load balancer fronting James and another load balancer fronting IIS SMTP

We are seeing that it takes less than 1 second for the LoadBalancer to reach the IIS box
but over 6 seconds to reach James

If we have our JSP applications connecting directly to either IIS or James, the connect time
is less than 1 sec for both smtp servers

I talked to the network folks and to the LoadBalancer folks, they are indicating that it's probably
James and not the network or loadbalancer.

Both loadbalancers have the same hardware/software. We even swapped the 2 loadbalancer between
James and IIS to make sure that we didn't have incompatible configurations.
But the result is the same.  It takes more time to reach James from the load balancer
than it would for IIS.


I wonder if anyone has experienced the same problem? 


JSP application    -->  Load Balancer  (Pools IIS SMTP)  ---> IIS 1a MX 10, IIS 1b MX 20
                                                         ---> IIS 2a MX 10, IIS 2b MX 20



JSP application    -->  Load Balancer  (Pools James)  ---> James 1a MX 10, James 1b MX 20
                                                      ---> James 2a MX 10, James 2b MX 20



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

RE: JAMES and Load Balancer (SLOW CONNECT)

["Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>]

Ian,

If you telnet through your load balancer, how long does it take to get a
response from James?

If the clocks are synchronized between the servers, look in the
smtpserver.log for the connection records.  You will see a log entry for
each incoming connection, e.g.,

  21/05/03 12:49:27 INFO  smtpserver: Connection from gateway (192.168.1.1)

If necessary, go into SAR-INF/environment.xml and turn on DEBUG for
smtpserver, and you will enable protocol-level tracking for each command.

> I talked to the network folks and to the LoadBalancer folks,
> they are indicating that it's probably James and not the
> network or loadbalancer.

Do they have any suggestion as to what they think an application could be
doing such that it responds differently to the load balancer vs direct?

Don't forget to give us an idea of OS, JVM and James version.

	--- Noel


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