(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
In terms of the read any/ write all strategy thats exactly what I want. I do want it to deliver ail to all the servers at once. I want a system exactly as yuo said, so that if one location completely loses internet connectivity, users outside that location can still access the email. Coda seems to be theonly system I know about that has read/write replication. Even AFS only supports read/only replication. --- Jan Harkes <jaharkes_at_cs.cmu.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 10:02:19PM -0700, Zachary > Denison wrote: > > drive, where I store users mail directories. What > I > > would like to do is setup these three machines as > CODA > > servers with replication, so each one is an exact > > mirror of the other 2. Is this what happens under > > replication? I hope so, because this is what I > want. > > Anyway I want to store these in geographically > > disparate locations. At each location I want to > have > > CODA clients, which run the mail delivery > software. > > Won't work. > > Coda uses a write-all, read-one replication > stragegy. So the Coda > clients in each location will try to store new mail > in all servers at > the same time. > > So you could just as well have all servers in one > location, in which > case you probably wouldn't consider delivering email > from a remote > location. This just shows that Coda is not the right > solution for your > problem. > > > the administration manual, it seems to imply that > the > > maximum size of the RVM log partition is 130 Megs, > > RVM is both a log and a data partition, the log > really doesn't have to > be that big at all, somewhere between 2 and 8 MB is > plenty. It's the > data segment that is important, this is memory > mapped, so the limit is > pretty much defined by the operating system and is > typically between 2 > and 3 GB. > > The RVM data contains all the metadata and directory > contents, which is > typically around 5% of the actual size of the > associated filedata. So > there is a limit to how much data (actually how many > files) a server > process can possibly handle, which we _assume_ to be > around 50GB. > Ofcourse it is possible to some extent to run > multiple Coda server > processes on one machine, but that is > administratively more difficult > and you'd be living out of swap, as 10 processes > would easily need about > 20GB of swapspace. This kind of VM load is typically > not handled very > well, so you'll not only get hit by obscure Coda > bugs, but also obscure > Linux VM bugs ;) > > So why do you want replication? To ease the load of > many users popping > their email, or to provide failover when one of the > sites disappears > from the face of the earth? > > For the user case it should be possible to use a > static load-balancing > trick where each server only deals with a 1/3rd > subset of all users. If > the group is large enough each server should be > getting a similar number > of users at any given time. Each mail delivery > process can accept > anything, but forward specific users to the right > server, f.i. depending > on the md5 hash of the username % 3. > > For failover, it just depends how synchronized it > need to be. Any good > synchronization will require a lot of traffic > between the 3 servers. > Effectively the total user load such a setup can > handle would be less > than any single machine would be able to. > > Jan > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.comReceived on 2001-10-11 11:28:09