From: Carlos Jiménez (zuberoteleline.es)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2008 - 15:59:32 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-postfix-userspostfix.org [mailto:owner-postfix-
> userspostfix.org] On Behalf Of Bill Cole
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:24 AM
> To: postfix-userspostfix.org
> Subject: RE: RBL in Postfix with Load Balancing
>
> At 12:29 AM +0100 1/7/08, Carlos Jiménez wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Do you think it is better to use two MX than using one MX and a load
> >balancer with two Postfix Servers?
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Load balancers were invented to deal with HTTP,
> where the protocol provides no model for
> automatic client failover and every connection
> failure is immediately exposed to the end user.
> As Dr. Venema noted, SMTP is a very different
> thing.
>
> >We thought in the load balancer because the customer had it (and he
> wanted
> >to use it) and thinking on redundancy capabilities with this device.
>
> Think about that more carefully. If you only have
> one load balancer, using it reduces your
> redundancy because you are imposing a single
> point of failure.
>
> >Also,
> >it was easier for the customer to redirect all outgoing SMTP traffic
> to one
> >"Virtual IP" than configuring any kind of load balancing (to the IP
> >addresses of Postfix Servers) in their back-end Mail Server (Lotus
> Server).
> >I'd appreciate any suggestion.
>
> The outbound gateway function is a different
> circumstance from inbound "MX" function. The
> right sort of load balancer setup (e.g. 2 load
> balancers rigged for failover) can be useful for
> an outbound gateway system when you cannot count
> on all of the mail sources using it to do the
> right thing when given a name with multiple A
> records in DNS.
>
>
>
> --
> Bill Cole
> billscconsult.com

Thank you very much for your help. We are going to work on the info you (and
people of the mailing list) have given us.

Carlos.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]