ANNOUNCEMENT - The community will be down for maintenace this Thursday August 13 from 12:00 AM PT to 02:00 AM PT. As a precaution save your work.
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
820
Views
0
Helpful
2
Replies
Highlighted
Beginner

Ironport clusters not like traditional clusters

I know the Ironport cluster is not like your traditional cluster where you have a VIP and redundant hardware to ensure seamless failover should a device fail.  Im keen to hear then how others have achieved a Highly available state for incoming emails to 2 or more Ironport appliances with seamless redundancy.                  

Everyone's tags (4)
2 REPLIES 2
Highlighted
Beginner

Ironport clusters not like traditional clusters

For inbound mail, MX preference is fine for most purposes.

For outbound mail, you can either take the same approach (smarthost preference) if your groupware supports it, or use a third party load balancer to provide a VIP.

Highlighted
Participant

Re: Ironport clusters not like traditional clusters

We use a load balancer in front of our ESAs. Look in the user guide (the advanced one, I think), for "direct server return" load balancing.

Using a load balancer makes for practically instantaneous fail-over. Granted, thats not as big a deal for SMTP as it is for other protocols, but it does avoid unnecessary mail delays. It also allows new ESAs to be deployed without DNS shenanigans, since the MX record refers to the load balancer. That's very helpful when you're protecting several hundred domains like we are. Updating hundreds of MX records is a drag.

++Don