<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>Good afternoon,</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>Our Cyrus machines (Cyrus 3.0.8), usually have 3 mailbox partitions. Sometimes, one of them becomes highly filled so we usually perform a mailbox rename to another partition of the same server. For that purpose, we normally lock at our proxy barrier any access to the mailbox (we do play with Nginx authentication, Postfix hold and so....). Is it really needed to lock that way the mailbox, at some "external to Cyrus level," in order to avoid mailbox corruption?. Or does Cyrus handle that properly?. Does Cyrus exclusively lock and after done, unlock again?. Have been taking a look at mboxlist_renamemailbox() and seemed so. Have noticed too, that it seems that partition rename operation from and to the same server but different parition at least, is not being inserted in the rolling mode lock.. is this a new security measure for avoiding accidents with the rename?. Always I have done a mailbox rename previously (Cyrus 2.3.X), have stopped the master/slave replication, done the rename in the master and later if all ended fine... launched in the slave a dm of the "in the master renamed mailbox" and a sync_client -u from the master for the mailbox to be copied to the appropiate partition in the slave.</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>My other question is.. with the new replication method (imap based and so...), can I do a user mode sync_client from a mailbox, to another server acting as a master?. I mean, in the following scenario : </p>
<p>Server A (master) => Server B (slave)</p>
<p>Server C (master) => Server D (slave)</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>The <a href="mailto:aaa@bbb.net">aaa@bbb.net</a> mailbox is in A server. I want to move the mailbox from A=>B couple of master/slave server to C=>D couple of mater/slave. I launch a "sync_client -v -u <a href="mailto:aaa@bbb.net">aaa@bbb.net</a> -S C -p partition3" in server A. Server C, has <code class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">sync_log_chain</span></code> enabled. Would that mailbox be replicated in C=>D couple (to both from A to C and from C to D) and been able to be accesible in C?. If so, does any kind of drawback exist in having always sync_log_chain enabled?... else for this kind of movement seems to be useful..</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>But thinking about it... if C is master... is it really needed that sync_log_chain config statement in that case or it would just be necessary (as I think), for replicating in the following scenario only?.</p>
<p>Server 1 (master) -> Server 2 (slave) -> Server 3 (slave)</p>
<p>So, not needed when (there's a master in the middle) :</p>
<p>Server 1 (master) -> Server 2 (master) -> Server 3 (slave) perhaps as in <a href="https://www.cyrusimap.org/imap/reference/admin/sop/replication.html">https://www.cyrusimap.org/imap/reference/admin/sop/replication.html</a> can be read?. </p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>Thank you so much for your time,</p>
<p>Best regards,</p>
</body></html>