[Imap-uw] Simultaneous access to imap mailbox?
Jeroen van Aart
kroshka at atypon.com
Tue Sep 18 15:23:13 PDT 2007
Dan Pritts wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 01:33:50PM -0700, Mark Crispin wrote:
> My understanding is that this is what caused the spectacular failure of
> the new mail system at a big 10 university last fall.
> they had bought their fancy NFS servers from a large vendor known for
> their PCs.
You wonder why those IT people don't read the manuals. That using NFS is
not advised is pretty clearly written in quite a number of places in the
manuals of various tools. At least I remember it that way, because the
idea "NFS is bad for this" is imprinted in my brain. ;-)
But even in a conceptual way it looks like a bad idea, as it introduces
one more thing which can go down. Email is seen as so critical, you want
to avoid downtime as much as possible. And keep the mail boxes on the
mail server. To distribute server load you could set things up so email
gets routed depending on its (domain)name. In that case if the server
for emails sent to X is down, emails sent to Y still arrive and vice versa.
> (trying to be a bit oblique so as not to anger/embarrass anyone).
I'd say a healthy dose of embarrassment might help prevent such mistakes
in the future. :-)
More information about the Imap-uw