From: Phil Howard (no email)
Date: Mon Feb 03 2003 - 00:38:13 EST
On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 08:20:03PM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
| On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Phil Howard wrote:
|
| > So this new message was be appended to the same FILE? That sounds
| > more like the old UNIX mailbox format.
|
| No. Same mailbox.
|
| Two servers are in sync, both with a UIDNEXT of 1000 for a particular
| mailbox. They suffer a netsplit and both have an APPEND happen,
| regardless of the mailstore implementation, they now both have a different
| concept of what UID 1000 is.
|
| > | Doing replicated IMAP stores (espeically geographicly distanct ones) is
| > | not an easy problem.
| >
| > It's easy if every message is a separate file.
|
| This is not true. It has nothing to do with the implementation of the
| mailstore.
Apparently the way Cyrus does it, there are problems. But that does
not mean it cannot be done in general. By keeping a sequential number
and naming the files by that number alone, of course there can be
collisions. If the original design of the mailstore required being
able to do two-way replication reliably, it would be a matter of
making the file names be more unique, such as using a timestamp plus
hostname.
So basically it comes down to, this isn't possible with Cyrus without
major hacking.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ | | | Texas, USA | http://ka9wgn.ham.org/ | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|