Re: two or more instances of James with one database backend

[Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>]

You cannot share mail/spool repositories between james instances.
They uses application locking, so they will fail to lock and that could 
lead to multiple processing of the same message and various errors.

I replied many times on this argument. An attempt to support distributed 
locking has been done (james-ha project on sourceforge), but I suggest 
to use the primary/secondary MX solution that is part of the SMTP 
specification: 1 server is primary and handle mails, the second server 
is the secondary and simply keeps mails in the spool (outgoing) waiting 
for the first server to come back to life.

Stefano

Artur Satarov ha scritto:
> Hi all.
> Does anybody use two or more instances of James with one database
> backend? I was trying to create test configuration:
> -    Balance on linux box
> Balance –H 25 <james_server_1> <james_server_2> %
> Balance –H 110 <james_server_1> <james_server_2> %
> -    two james instances (james_server_1, james_server_2) with same 
> configurations.
> -    PostgreSql database
> It works fine at first glance. But correct work with great load and
> concurrent db access is uncertain for me. Is anybody can list to me
> possible problems with this configuration?
> 
> Thanks for advice.
> 



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

R: two or more instances of James with one database backend

[Marcello Marangio <m....@tno.it>]

Hi
I think we are going to adopt this approach: 2 different mail/spool
repositories and same inbox repository with a simple db-based pop3 lock.
Ciao
Marcello

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Stefano Bagnara [mailto:apache@bago.org]
> Inviato: sabato 10 marzo 2007 17.42
> A: James Users List
> Oggetto: Re: two or more instances of James with one database backend
> 
> You cannot share mail/spool repositories between james instances.
> They uses application locking, so they will fail to lock and that could
> lead to multiple processing of the same message and various errors.
> 
> I replied many times on this argument. An attempt to support distributed
> locking has been done (james-ha project on sourceforge), but I suggest
> to use the primary/secondary MX solution that is part of the SMTP
> specification: 1 server is primary and handle mails, the second server
> is the secondary and simply keeps mails in the spool (outgoing) waiting
> for the first server to come back to life.
> 
> Stefano
> 
> Artur Satarov ha scritto:
> > Hi all.
> > Does anybody use two or more instances of James with one database
> > backend? I was trying to create test configuration:
> > -    Balance on linux box
> > Balance -H 25 <james_server_1> <james_server_2> %
> > Balance -H 110 <james_server_1> <james_server_2> %
> > -    two james instances (james_server_1, james_server_2) with same
> > configurations.
> > -    PostgreSql database
> > It works fine at first glance. But correct work with great load and
> > concurrent db access is uncertain for me. Is anybody can list to me
> > possible problems with this configuration?
> >
> > Thanks for advice.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org


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