Mailing List SIMS@mail.stalker.com Message #5802
From: Joe Laffey <joe@laffeycomputer.com>
Subject: Re: Sharing SIMS account over atalk
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 10:50:59 -0500 (CDT)
To: <SIMS@mail.stalker.com>
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Mark Hartman wrote:

> At 6:21 AM -0700 4/21/00, Joe Laffey wrote:
> >I am trying to get some redundancy going and this is what I have done: I
> >have two Macs, each with SIMS. Each is on its own subnet, but the same
> >ethernet. The main server (A) shares (via Appletalk) it HD with the SIMS
> >folder. The Secondary server (B) is connected to A via Appletalk and has
> >an alias to the accounts folder of server A in its SIMS folder (server B).
> >This seems to work fine.
> >
> >I wondered if anyone, especially any of you fine Stalker folks, knew of a
> >reason NOT to do this (other than reliability of AppleTalk). I found that
> >it worked by just sharing the accounts. SIMS does seem to lock the account
> >file while accessing it. (Although the rror returned by the other server
> >when trying concurrent access is a bad username/password error, not a
> >POP.lock busy error.)
> >
> >The two machines still maintain separate queues.
>
> I have a similar setup:
>
>       DSL          Cable modem        Rather than set these up as two
>        |                 |            separate servers, however, one is
>    +-------+         +-------+        set up as secondary; that is, all
>    | SIMS+ |         | SIMS+ |        mail it receives for my domain is
>    | IPNR  |         | IPNR  |        sent (over the internal Ethernet)
>    +-------+         +-------+        to the other server.  IMO, the
>        | Internal E'Net  |            Mac is reliable enough that I'm
>        +--------+--------+            less concerned about users having
>                 |                     a short availability outage than
>             +-------+                 the possibility of dropping mail,
>             |  Hub  |-----> users     and this setup seems to work very
>             +-------+                 well.
>

Sorry for quoting the entire message, but I think some people might be
lost with it...

The reason I set it up as I did was so that users would still be able to
get POP access through the secondary line/subnet/server (ISDN) even if the
main line (T1) was down. (I do this via scripts that switch DNS with short
TTLs when there is a problem.)

Thoughts?

Joe Laffey
LAFFEY Computer Imaging
St. Louis, MO
-------------------------
With no walls or fences on the Internet, who needs Windows or Gates?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster