Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Zimbra clustering, looking for input.

  1. #1
    NathanL is offline Loyal Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    93
    Rep Power
    6

    Default Zimbra clustering, looking for input.

    We run a Zimbra multiserver install at the moment, with three store servers. We more or less manually distribute users amongst the three store servers, each has its own /opt/zimbra/store and /opt/zimbra/hsm. They are not sharing any data other than what ldap shares amongst all of the zimbra nodes.

    We are in the process of plannig an upgrade path from RHEL5 ZCS 6.0.10 to RHEL6 ZCS 8.x (whatever is current when we're ready to install). We are moving to 7.2.2 in the middle, then adding in new rhel6 servers, and retiring the rhel5 servers. Then upgrading 7.2.2. to 8.x.

    I'm wondering if we can do anything smarter with those store servers when we get to the new platform stage. can the store server be clustered, such that all of our users simply exist in a cluster of X store servers? Or is the split store server approach the best option still?

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    LMStone's Avatar
    LMStone is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    477 Congress Street | Portland, ME 04101
    Posts
    1,374
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NathanL View Post
    We run a Zimbra multiserver install at the moment, with three store servers. We more or less manually distribute users amongst the three store servers, each has its own /opt/zimbra/store and /opt/zimbra/hsm. They are not sharing any data other than what ldap shares amongst all of the zimbra nodes.

    We are in the process of plannig an upgrade path from RHEL5 ZCS 6.0.10 to RHEL6 ZCS 8.x (whatever is current when we're ready to install). We are moving to 7.2.2 in the middle, then adding in new rhel6 servers, and retiring the rhel5 servers. Then upgrading 7.2.2. to 8.x.

    I'm wondering if we can do anything smarter with those store servers when we get to the new platform stage. can the store server be clustered, such that all of our users simply exist in a cluster of X store servers? Or is the split store server approach the best option still?

    Thanks!
    Please update your profile with your Zimbra version. :-)

    Assuming Network Edition?

    If so, you may wish to deploy a proxy/MTA server and a dedicated LDAP server, leaving your mailbox servers as just mailbox servers.

    You can then upgrade the LDAP and Proxy/MTA server to Zimbra 8.0.4, leaving your mailbox servers at 7.2.4 as per the Rolling Upgrade wiki article: Rolling Upgrades for ZCS - Zimbra :: Wiki

    Now that your users access Zimbra via the proxy server, you can deploy a new Zimbra 8.0.4 mailbox server(s) and transparently migrate users to the new Zimbra 8 mailbox server(s), retiring the Zimbra 7.2.4 mailbox servers as you go.

    Hope that helps,
    Mark

  3. #3
    NathanL is offline Loyal Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    93
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Thanks, updated.

    Yes, NE.

    We already have ldap, smtp, and proxy spun out into their own servers. The miration path isnt really where i need help, i think i have that all worked out. What i'm wondering is, if there is a way to truly cluster my store servers, instead of having store servers setup as I do now.

  4. #4
    LMStone's Avatar
    LMStone is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    477 Congress Street | Portland, ME 04101
    Posts
    1,374
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NathanL View Post
    Thanks, updated.

    Yes, NE.

    We already have ldap, smtp, and proxy spun out into their own servers. The miration path isnt really where i need help, i think i have that all worked out. What i'm wondering is, if there is a way to truly cluster my store servers, instead of having store servers setup as I do now.
    No supported clustering for store servers. Some have tried to use DRDB/Heartbeat/MySQL replication. Curious as to the exposure you are trying to protect against?

    Best regards,
    Mark

  5. #5
    NathanL is offline Loyal Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    93
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NathanL View Post
    Thanks, updated.

    Yes, NE.

    We already have ldap, smtp, and proxy spun out into their own servers. The miration path isnt really where i need help, i think i have that all worked out. What i'm wondering is, if there is a way to truly cluster my store servers, instead of having store servers setup as I do now.
    I'm not exactly trying to protect against anything, i'm looking for a cleaner/more portable solution. Currently, we have proxies in front of three distinct store servers. Users are bound directly to each store. So user1 may be on store0, user2 on store2, and user3 on store1. If store1 were to go down, or get overloaded, user3 (and his over a thousand store-mates) would have problems, while user1 and 2 are just fine. I was wondering if there was a method to make users bound to a cluster of stores, instead of individual stores. Thus spreading the workload across many stores, instead of having things sort of manually balanced as we have it now.

    If there's not, then there's not, we'll just keep on doing what we're doing.

    Thanks!

  6. #6
    LMStone's Avatar
    LMStone is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    477 Congress Street | Portland, ME 04101
    Posts
    1,374
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NathanL View Post
    I'm not exactly trying to protect against anything, i'm looking for a cleaner/more portable solution. Currently, we have proxies in front of three distinct store servers. Users are bound directly to each store. So user1 may be on store0, user2 on store2, and user3 on store1. If store1 were to go down, or get overloaded, user3 (and his over a thousand store-mates) would have problems, while user1 and 2 are just fine. I was wondering if there was a method to make users bound to a cluster of stores, instead of individual stores. Thus spreading the workload across many stores, instead of having things sort of manually balanced as we have it now.

    If there's not, then there's not, we'll just keep on doing what we're doing.

    Thanks!
    Zimbra's architecture "pins" a lot mailbox data to a specific store server and every mailbox has a single dedicated mailbox server, so not sure you can actually get the portability I think you are seeking. "Users bound directly to each store" as you say is exactly how Zimbra is architected.

    Am I interpreting your message correctly that you have a proxy server for each mailbox server? If so, a single Zimbra proxy server will handle tens of thousands of mailboxes no problem, and you can always load-balance a pair of proxy servers behind a pair of failover load-balancing appliances for redundancy and resiliency.

    Also, if your COS does not prevent it, when you go to create a new mailbox Zimbra has an algorithm to create the mailbox on a lesser-used mailbox server. 5-6K mailboxes per mailstore server is not a problem (we've seen much more); having you looked at the Performance Tuning wiki for performance tweaks?

    Hope that helps,
    Mark

  7. #7
    NathanL is offline Loyal Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    93
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LMStone View Post
    Zimbra's architecture "pins" a lot mailbox data to a specific store server and every mailbox has a single dedicated mailbox server, so not sure you can actually get the portability I think you are seeking. "Users bound directly to each store" as you say is exactly how Zimbra is architected.
    This is what i thought, and the way Zimbra is currently working for us, I just wanted to make sure i wasnt missing out on an improvement before i went through the upgrade work.

    Am I interpreting your message correctly that you have a proxy server for each mailbox server? If so, a single Zimbra proxy server will handle tens of thousands of mailboxes no problem, and you can always load-balance a pair of proxy servers behind a pair of failover load-balancing appliances for redundancy and resiliency.
    We actually have two proxies, in front of three stores. Two for redundancy. We've never had performance problems with the proxies. We have had performance problems with one of our stores, but thats a different matter, and i'm already working with zimbra's support on that.

    Also, if your COS does not prevent it, when you go to create a new mailbox Zimbra has an algorithm to create the mailbox on a lesser-used mailbox server. 5-6K mailboxes per mailstore server is not a problem (we've seen much more); having you looked at the Performance Tuning wiki for performance tweaks?

    Hope that helps,
    Mark
    This may not be a bad idea. We're a college, so we have a few classes of user, Students, faculty, and staff, to make it simple.

    We offer more services to faculty and staff, than we do students. So, when the system was first built (not by me...) faculty/staff, and students were split between two stores. Students on one, fac/staff on the other, we later added a second student server. So today, this means that a large group of users, all using zimbra's features more heavily are on one store server, and the lighter student users are split across two servers. Seems like something I may look at correcting when we migrate to the new platform. Seems almost like a made-up boundary that was put in place because it "made sense" to the admin that built it.

  8. #8
    LMStone's Avatar
    LMStone is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    477 Congress Street | Portland, ME 04101
    Posts
    1,374
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    We have a number of edu clients and the question of segregating faculty/staff/alumni mailboxes is more of a political rather than technical issue in our experience.

    If funding for faculty mailboxes comes from a different allocation than for student mailboxes, it's easier politically to justify hardware upgrades when all the faculty is on one set of servers which need to be renewed for example; none of the students will benefit form that investment!

    FWIW I'd recommend looking deeper into the various features exposed in the Class of Service via the Admin Console. On the presumption that 20% of your users account for 80% of your load, you may find that restricting certain resource-intensive features alone will claw back a good amount of performance.

    Also, the simple stuff like setting vm.swappiness to zero and tuning MySQL (e.g. make sure your innodb buffer pool size exceeds your innodb database size) will also yield noticeable performance improvements.

    Hope that helps,
    Mark

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Zimbra clustering
    By maceee in forum Administrators
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2010, 12:28 PM
  2. Zimbra clustering
    By maceee in forum Installation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2010, 12:28 PM
  3. Clustering In Zimbra
    By neer in forum Installation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-28-2010, 02:18 AM
  4. how to zimbra clustering
    By sahil in forum Administrators
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-01-2010, 12:11 AM
  5. Zimbra NE on Netapp -advice/input
    By leog21 in forum Installation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-22-2009, 10:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •