Re: Looking at new mail server layout

6 msg	DSN relay host
1 msg	Restrict sender and from to one domain on outbo...
10 msg	Outbound postfix routing issue
25 msg	Problem with Black List

Looking at new mail server layout
\ Stephen Atkins (7 May 2008)
. \ Devdas Bhagat (8 May 2008)
. . \ Stephen Atkins (8 May 2008)

26 msg	why every minute: 'reload configuration /etc/po...
2 msg	myhostname parameter
17 msg	RBL problems with smarthost on private address ...
34 msg	Backscatting filter?
3 msg	how to setup postfix in 'deliver-only' mode?
7 msg	Slow queue configuration
17 msg	Some Windows SMTP Server have problems with STA...
5 msg	For each check_ns or each check_mx, the value i...
4 msg	postfix and spf
2 msg	Password Validation in postfix
4 msg	catching some spam with warn_if_reject and reje...
9 msg	RFC: Check mail quota at a mail relay (backscat...
31 msg	GPS vs GLD (greylisting)
3 msg	Unmeant update from 2.2.10 to 2.5.1
27 msg	mailq lockups

Subject:	Re: Looking at new mail server layout
Group:	Postfix-users
From:	Stephen Atkins
Date:	8 May 2008

Devdas Bhagat wrote:
> I would go with the NFS split (or use GFS if you are feeling brave).
> The biggest benefit is that you can add storage separately from the
> host. Also, you can share this storage between multiple frontend boxes,
> as well as being able to move the IMAP server to another set of hosts if
> needed.
>
> IMAP ------| |------ MTA ---- MX
> IMAP --- Storage --- MTA ---- MX
>
> Personally, I wouldn't split by domain but partition my storage by user.
> Share the storage between the MTAs and the POP3/IMAP servers, but each
> set of users gets their own set of physical disks.
>

Thanks for the reply. I think we may start off with something a bit
smaller. Maybe something like:

MX-----|
|---MTA----Storage----IMAP/POP3
MX-----| |----------Web Mail

The two MX boxes are connected to different ISPs for some redundancy.

Do you see any issues with this sort of setup?

Stephen