[milters] Archive

Lists Index Date Thread Search

Article: 1562
From: Grant Taylor
Date: 2007-04-18 10:34:15 -0400
Subject: Re: milter-spamc: Multiple spamd servers?

Removal...........: milters-request@milter.info?subject=remove
More information..: http://www.milter.info/#Support
--------------------------------------------------------

On 04/17/07 20:38, Ben Spencer wrote:
> Interesting then that spamc actually will take a list of servers and
> load balance between them (at least per the documentation). I assume
> that it is fairly "dumb" though as it tries to contact non-existant
> hosts or down hosts. While it may be best to not load balance in the
> application, I am not sure how many people actually have a load balancer
> which can handle such traffic. Maybe we are unique in that though.

Spamc is not really load balancing as in sharing the load amongst all 
the servers.  Rather spamc would be looking for the server that 
responded the fastest to use the next time.  This is really an issue of 
finding the fastest responding server and dealing with a server that 
does not respond (as in it is down).  So I guess you could say that this 
is more a redundancy (1+N) fail over type backup where each client would 
primarily send its load to one server.  Granted that server could rotate 
through the other servers, but it would still use only one server at a time.

Yes this method would end up trying any and all servers in the list, 
even if they were down.  However the client should only try to contact 
down hosts one time.

I don't know how many people have hardware load balancers.  However I 
suspect that Linux Virtual Server and it's associated load balancing 
techniques could easily be used to accomplish this too.



Grant. . . .

Lists Index Date Thread Search