Re: SV: Mirrored servers

----- Original Message -----
>I suppose that if one location burns to the ground and
we lose some emails
>, it would be acceptable as long as we have some sort of
email service
>still going. the alternative is to have mirroring at one
location with
>backups off site, and that would still leave you with
missing emails in
>some scenarios.

Mirroring should not leave you with missing emails...

>of course, if the mirrors are remote then being out of
sync is more
>likely. some you win, some you lose.

Why would you say that? My experience has been that
mirroring has been
incredibly fast. The real consideration is round trip time
for server to
server communication, not physical distance. If it only
takes 2 seconds to
transfer something from site a to site b or even a minute
the likely hood
of loosing email because site a burns down is pretty low.

On the other hand, how you handle a switchover from routing
the messages to
site a over to site b is more important.

While ChrisP is a little more conservative and cautious
about making
statements about mirroring, I've seen very little to make me
doubt
surgemail's robustness with respect to how well and how
quickly it mirrors.

As for "problems" the only thing I've seen so far
that could be considered
a "problem" is accessing new messages on a mirror
then going back to your
normal server and accessing the same message(s) again.
Within Webmail's
surge interface the messages you read on the mirror still
have the
background coloring when you return to the normal server.
They no longer
show up highlighted in bold (as expected) because they've
been read. But
the interface highlights (the background color) as though
its a new
message. I don't know if thats a bug or design consideration
to "alert" the
user that mail was read at another location.

If you use some kind of load balancing between the two
servers this could
be a problem. If you manually switch on a failure then its
not a
consideration.

None the less, I've seen how having the two servers on the
same subnet at
the same location allows for "near" instantaneous
mirroring of messages. I
say near only because I can't prove that its not instant but
I have not
been able to witness a delay other than the initial setup of
the mirror.
>From there on it seems pretty damn fast.

=================================
Kevin W. Gagel
Network Administrator
Information Technology Services
(250) 562-2131 local 5448
My Blog:
http://mail.cnc.bc.
ca/blogs/gagel
My File share:
http://mail.cnc.bc.
ca/users/gagel

------------------------------------------------------------
-------
The College of New Caledonia, Visit us at http://www.cnc.bc.ca
Virus scanning is done on all incoming and outgoing email.
Anti-spam information for CNC can be found at http://gateway.cnc.bc.ca

------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Only when large attachments are involved does it not do Live
Send  
which is basically instantaneous upon acceptance.  That
would be the  
only issue if a server went down and that was queued for
mirroring.

On Mar 27, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Kevin W. Gagel wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>> I suppose that if one location burns to the ground
and we lose some  
>> emails
>> , it would be acceptable as long as we have some
sort of email  
>> service
>> still going. the alternative is to have mirroring
at one location  
>> with
>> backups off site, and that would still leave you
with missing  
>> emails in
>> some scenarios.
>
> Mirroring should not leave you with missing emails...
>
>> of course, if the mirrors are remote then being out
of sync is more
>> likely. some you win, some you lose.
>
> Why would you say that? My experience has been that
mirroring has been
> incredibly fast. The real consideration is round trip
time for  
> server to
> server communication, not physical distance. If it only
takes 2  
> seconds to
> transfer something from site a to site b or even a
minute the likely  
> hood
> of loosing email because site a burns down is pretty
low.
>
> On the other hand, how you handle a switchover from
routing the  
> messages to
> site a over to site b is more important.
>
> While ChrisP is a little more conservative and cautious
about making
> statements about mirroring, I've seen very little to
make me doubt
> surgemail's robustness with respect to how well and how
quickly it  
> mirrors.
>
> As for "problems" the only thing I've seen so
far that could be  
> considered
> a "problem" is accessing new messages on a
mirror then going back to  
> your
> normal server and accessing the same message(s) again.
Within  
> Webmail's
> surge interface the messages you read on the mirror
still have the
> background coloring when you return to the normal
server. They no  
> longer
> show up highlighted in bold (as expected) because
they've been read.  
> But
> the interface highlights (the background color) as
though its a new
> message. I don't know if thats a bug or design
consideration to  
> "alert" the
> user that mail was read at another location.
>
> If you use some kind of load balancing between the two
servers this  
> could
> be a problem. If you manually switch on a failure then
its not a
> consideration.
>
> None the less, I've seen how having the two servers on
the same  
> subnet at
> the same location allows for "near"
instantaneous mirroring of  
> messages. I
> say near only because I can't prove that its not
instant but I have  
> not
> been able to witness a delay other than the initial
setup of the  
> mirror.
> From there on it seems pretty damn fast.
>
> =================================
> Kevin W. Gagel
> Network Administrator
> Information Technology Services
> (250) 562-2131 local 5448
> My Blog:
> http://mail.cnc.bc.
ca/blogs/gagel
> My File share:
> http://mail.cnc.bc.
ca/users/gagel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> The College of New Caledonia, Visit us at http://www.cnc.bc.ca
> Virus scanning is done on all incoming and outgoing
email.
> Anti-spam information for CNC can be found at http://gateway.cnc.bc.ca

>
------------------------------------------------------------
-------
>

Is there a way to set up a catch all type email address for
a domain 
that will receive any mail directed to the domain?

Thanks in advance,
Anthony

At 10:19 PM 3/29/2008, Anthony Lemons wrote:
>Is there a way to set up a catch all type email address
for a domain 
>that will receive any mail directed to the domain?

Yes. In Surgemail terms, it is called a fallback address.

In surgemail.ini, use this:

vdomain address="" name="whatever.com"
         fallback "catchallwhatever.com"

Where catchall is the mailbox to use to receive all mail
which 
doesn't match an existing box.

-Robert

>e

Tellurian Networks - Global Hosting Solutions Since 1995
http://www.tellurian.com
| 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211
"Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin
Franklin

Thank you.

At 02:48 PM 3/30/2008, you wrote:
>At 10:19 PM 3/29/2008, Anthony Lemons wrote:
>>Is there a way to set up a catch all type email
address for a 
>>domain that will receive any mail directed to the
domain?
>
>Yes. In Surgemail terms, it is called a fallback
address.
>
>In surgemail.ini, use this:
>
>vdomain address=""
name="whatever.com"
>         fallback "catchallwhatever.com"
>
>Where catchall is the mailbox to use to receive all mail
which 
>doesn't match an existing box.
>
>-Robert