james and load-balancing

["Kervin L. Pierre" <ke...@blueprintinc.com>]

It seems that since James can run entirely of an RDBMS as it's datastore 
then it can get load-balancing for very little.  A bit of table-locking, 
and/or a separate table that allows an instance of the server to take 
'ownership' temporarily of a mailbox may be needed for instance.

Cyrus people have the RFC3656 ( http://asg.web.cmu.edu/rfc/rfc3656.txt ) 
MUPDATE they've been using for their aggregator as well.

Any thoughts?  Has the topic of load-balancing come up yet?

Kervin

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

RE: james and load-balancing

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

> It seems that since James can run entirely of an RDBMS as it's datastore
> then it can get load-balancing for very little.  A bit of table-locking,
> and/or a separate table that allows an instance of the server to take
> 'ownership' temporarily of a mailbox may be needed for instance.

The juxtaposition of "very little" and "a bit of table-locking" imply to me
that by "very little" you don't mean very little impact on performance.

But, yes, the idea of clustering has come up.  You can see some of the
discussion in the archives and bullet itemed on the Wiki
(http://wiki.apache.org/james/JamesV3).  We'll try to come up with an
implementation that provides high speed, low overhead and fault tolerance.

> Cyrus people have the RFC3656 ( http://asg.web.cmu.edu/rfc/rfc3656.txt )
> MUPDATE they've been using for their aggregator as well.

Unclear that it applies to this need.

	--- Noel


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