Re: [SPAM] anti-OSX [was: qmail+vpopmail upgrade questions]

On 08/07/2012 12:20 AM, Kurt Bigler wrote:
> Thanks, and to Matt also.
>
>
> On 8/3/12 11:18 AM, "Eric Shubert" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> * I think Windows sucks bad, and I like UNIX only without a UI.  I'm very
>>> good in vi.  But for running my server this time I'd like to try a UI for a
>>> for vanilla file management and such, and I don't think I want it to be
>>> either Gnome or KDE, because I've never liked them enough to try to learn
>>> them.  I won't mention X-Windows.  Apple Remote Desktop has some problems
>>> but they seem not bad for a server without its own display, and I can always
>>> use a different remote desktop if needed.
>>
>> If you're only looking for file management in a UI, I'd try a text based
>> one such as Vifm or Midnight Commander, as opposed to a GUI.
>
> What I want from file management is essentially "GUI".  I can tolerate text
> interfaces in the terminal, but it is harder to swallow as a cheap gui
> imitation.  It is still a gui in essence even if it is text-based, if it
> provides a view of the filesystem that does not require typing a command to
> get a directory listing.
>
> So I just prefer a GUI, and among GUI's I don't really even like to look at
> Windows Explorer, much less Midnight Commander.  I can adjust to anything,
> and maybe it is worth that adjustment if a GUI is just too expensive in
> terms of connection bandwidth, but it is not the experiment I had in mind to
> try next.
>
> Basically, the whole point is to use the Mac Finder, which in spite of being
> broken to hell by Apple, is still better than any Windows or unix file
> management GUI I have seen so far.  (It worked really well in OS 9 and
> actually Apple has never fixed it since, so it is crippled in 10 or so ways
> that are regularly annoying.)
>
> Sometimes I am "visual" and in a visual environment I basically relax.
> Using a terminal I am not relaxed, even if I am somewhat efficient.
>

In that case, you could install netatalk on your virtual email server, 
and connect to the host with finder using native methods. You should set 
up a host only (virtual) nic/subnet on the mail server for this access 
(network file sharing via netatalk), but that wouldn't be a problem.

>>> and also really don't want multiple IP's, and suspect sharing a
>>> single IP with host and mail VM would be problematic.
>>
>> There's no problem with this. Virtualization software can provide NAT
>> for the VM's nic(s).
>
> Ok, I had Parallels NAT break host functionality on the LAN once, which made
> me nervous.  (I could not print over the LAND as long as Parallels NAT was
> enabled on that Mac.)  I have also never put a real server behind a NAT
> before, so wasn't sure about it.
>

Parallels had some problems in the early going. I seem to remember 
hearing that they've fixed things up, but I'd verify that before using 
it. I've had no problems with Fusion.

>> It should be
>> no surprise that the server industry (if there is such a thing) has made
>> big moves toward virtualization for nearly a decade now.
>
> Yes.  I would love it if I could just download a working qmail+vpopmail VM
> appliance.  Maybe you could work on that?  :)

There is one available. :)
http://techyguru.com/ It's in standard OVF format.
Should work on Fusion. Not sure about Parallels.

>>> But if the whole idea doesn't work maybe I will just install some linux on
>>> my Mac mini.  But in that case I suppose I could put the whole thing in a
>>> linux VM under MacOSX and run SoftRAID in the Mac host.
>>
>> That's what I'd do. You could use Fusion or Parallels.
>
> I have the impression Fusion is more lightweight, but that's vague since I
> never used it.  Parallels is what I've been using "at home" and I have to
> say it seem a bit heavy, maybe overkill for a mail server that only needs a
> disk and a nic.
>
> Here's the other thing:  Bernstein I think used to say not to ever use qmail
> over NFS, and I'm not sure of the implications of that, or whether it is
> true.

I think DJB was probably referring to the queues specifically. He does 
some low level (inode) things with those. I run the Maildirs across NFS 
with no problems.

> But I'd rather not dedicate a disk for the qmail VM,

The VM will have its own virtual disk, which will be a file that resides 
on the Mac's native filesystem, which sits on SoftRAID. You could choose 
to put your Maildirs on the native filesystem if you'd like, and NFS 
share them back to the VM. Not much point in that really though, unless 
you want them there to be easier to back up. (Remember, RAID is *not* a 
backup).

> and in fact
> would like the web sever (or at least sqwebmail) to have access to the qmail
> directory hierarchy.

sqwebmail will have access to the mail via IMAP (courier or dovecot). 
QMT provides full IMAP support. It includes SquirrelMail web server, but 
you probably wouldn't want to use that.

> So I'd want to use the host file sharing provided by
> Parallels or Fusion, and perhaps that does not raise the problems that NFS
> would raise.

I typically steer clear of host file sharing, and use NFS where needed. 
Better the devil you know. ;) NFS shouldn't be a problem though if it's 
done right.

-- 
-Eric 'shubes'




!DSPAM:5021438934211645813185!