Backend-storage on NFS?

Phil Brutsche phil at
Mon Apr 4 12:34:22 EDT 2005

Natalino Picone wrote:
> What about using GFS instead of NFS ?
> I think this will make you able to aggregate disks on different servers 
> into which you should hold the cyrus spool.


>>> While you could theoretically share the volumes between 2 (or more)
>>> computers directly for active/active failover, you run into many of the
>>> same problems as with NFS (mmap not working right over the cluster file
>>> system, etc). It would also require the use of the pre-alpha Cyrus IMAP
>>> 2.3 code.

GFS is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind when I said "cluster file

There is still no guarantee it will work - the various file locking and
mmap()/read()/write() combinations Cyrus uses need to work right
regardless of what the underlying file system is - UFS vs ext3 vs NFS vs
GFS vs whatever else you can name.

Various people have tried different clustering file systems from
different vendors, and most of them have run into problems with locking
and mmap()/read()/write(). Check the list archives.

Really, this has been covered several times in the past.  Check the list 


Phil Brutsche
phil at
Cyrus Home Page:
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ:
List Archives/Info:

More information about the Info-cyrus mailing list