Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Postscreen and Memcached

Expand Messages
  • Stan Hoeppner
    ... Wietse, I recall being part of a discussion quite some time ago, and I thought this had been worked out already, using proxymap. My recollection is really
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 15, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On 4/15/2013 1:59 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
      > Phil Daws:
      >> I have postscreen working fine, on localhost, with memcached though
      >> am getting confused on how one sets it up for multi-server usage
      >> ? We would like out two front-end MTAs to share any IPs that have
      >> been added to the cache. How would we achieve this please ?
      >
      > postscreen requires a *persistent* database.
      >
      > memcached can be used on top of a *persistent* database.
      >
      > memcached can be shared between between different hosts, but that
      > is not enough. You need to share the persistent cache, too.
      >
      > postscreen does not support a *persistent* database that can be
      > shared between different hosts.
      >
      > I haven't tried the Postfix memcache client against memcachedb.
      > This might work, but it may not be fast enough.

      Wietse, I recall being part of a discussion quite some time ago, and I
      thought this had been worked out already, using proxymap. My
      recollection is really vague. What am I remembering, if not postscreen
      cache sharing between hosts?

      --
      Stan
    • Wietse Venema
      ... Your recollection is incorrect. ... This text: --begin quote-- backup (default: undefined) An optional Postfix database that provides persistent backup...
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 16, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Stan Hoeppner:
        > Wietse, I recall being part of a discussion quite some time ago, and I
        > thought this had been worked out already, using proxymap. My
        > recollection is really vague.

        Your recollection is incorrect.

        > What am I remembering, if not postscreen
        > cache sharing between hosts?

        This text:

        --begin quote--
        backup (default: undefined)
        An optional Postfix database that provides persistent backup...

        # Non-shared postscreen cache.
        backup = btree:/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache_map

        # Shared postscreen cache for processes on the same host.
        backup = proxy:btree:/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache_map

        Access to remote proxymap servers is under development.
        --end quote--

        Wietse
      • Stan Hoeppner
        ... I m not recalling the docs. What I m vaguely recalling is the conversation where we discussed methods of implementing the multihost sharing. IIRC someone
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 16, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On 4/16/2013 6:01 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
          > Stan Hoeppner:
          >> Wietse, I recall being part of a discussion quite some time ago, and I
          >> thought this had been worked out already, using proxymap. My
          >> recollection is really vague.
          >
          > Your recollection is incorrect.
          >
          >> What am I remembering, if not postscreen
          >> cache sharing between hosts?
          >
          > This text:
          >
          > --begin quote--
          > backup (default: undefined)
          > An optional Postfix database that provides persistent backup...
          >
          > # Non-shared postscreen cache.
          > backup = btree:/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache_map
          >
          > # Shared postscreen cache for processes on the same host.
          > backup = proxy:btree:/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache_map
          >
          > Access to remote proxymap servers is under development.
          > --end quote--
          >
          > Wietse

          I'm not recalling the docs. What I'm vaguely recalling is the
          conversation where we discussed methods of implementing the multihost
          sharing. IIRC someone mentioned possibly adapting TCP tables for use
          here. This was probably part of the same conversation that resulted in
          the above feature.

          In any event, whatever we discussed hasn't yet been implemented. I
          simply had recollection of discussing the multihost feature, but not the
          resulting status, which was obviously "future development". Sorry for
          wasting time.

          --
          Stan
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.