Re: Can we build a proper email cluster? (was: Re: Why is debian.org email so unreliable?)
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org> [2004.10.15.1448 +0200]:
> > Just to make it clear, I am advocating two *good* machines.
>
> ENOSUCHTHING wrt it not failing.
Nor did I intend to imply that they wouldn't fail :)
> > > Which is another good reason for not having such redundant
> > > servers.
> >
> > Now, that is a bit too far. The correct answer is to monitor the
> > damn things. And any sort of monitoring that would not catch
>
> While I understand Russell's concerns, I think that we should have
> a second machine to be able to swap in. If the primary every goes
And it better be live, or it gets waaaay easier for it to fall out-of-sync
with what was done to the primary machine.
> About backup MX... well, we can put them elsewhere. I run a couple
> reliable MXs and could also serve as backup for Debian.
I'd rather we had no backup MX per se, but two equally-ranking ones (i.e.
two primary ones)... this is also because of how Debian system
administration is usually done, and because of the big drawbacks of
secondary MX that are not configured exactly as the primary ones...
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: