- Previous message: Rudy Gevaert: "Re: NFSv4, anyone?"
- Maybe in reply to: Adam Kramer: "Re: NFSv4, anyone?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Adam Kramer (no email)
Date: Fri Dec 01 2006 - 19:10:47 EST
On 12/1/06, Rudy Gevaert <> wrote:
> Adam Kramer wrote:
> > Just another datapoint,
> >
> > Cyrus seems to work fine with a 2.4 kernel via NFSv3 to a netapp filer
> > when mounted with -o nolock. It doesn't use lockd, but it still uses
> > local locking. imaptest has no problems (except for "STORE failed: NO
> > Too many user flags in mailbox" which is just because cyrus has a
> > limit on how many different flags can exist in a mailbox.) I undefined
> > RAND_KEYWORDS and recompiled imaptest and it didn't report any errors
> > in about 20 minutes of running.
> >
> > Obviously with '-o nolock' you won't be able to have two servers
> > accessing the same mail store, but it could be used for quick failover
> > from one machine to another while still having the benefits of a
> > netapp like snapmirroring and .snapshot directories.
>
> How do you get consistant snapshots? Without stopping cyrus... Or don't
> you care about that?
As far as I'm aware, Netapp snapshots are atomic across a volume.
Thus, a snapshot should be no different than the state the system
could be left in should it crash or lose power. If a non-filesystem
damaging crash can leave Cyrus in an unrecoverable state, we all have
some other problems to think about. :)
-- -Adam ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/ Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
|
|
|