I have 3 servers that are geographically disperse. The WAN between ServerA and ServerB can often be unavailable. I have tried to use Passthru to get mail from ServerA to B through ServerC, using a passthru connection doc with higher cost routing. However, mail on ServerA continues to queue up appearing to not even try the passthru connection. Might there be a better way to accomplish failover in this scenario?
Thank you…
Subject: Server to server mail routing failover - not clustered
What is the mail routing setup of these servers in terms of Notes Named Networks?
If your A and B servers are in the same NNN then ServerA will always try to route directly to ServerB. Try putting A and B in different NNN’s, A and C in a shared NNN, then using an A → B connection and a C → B connection at the same routing cost.
Subject: RE: Server to server mail routing failover - not clustered
Thanks for the reply. All three servers are in a different DNN. Sorry for not specifying that before. Does that change your advice?
Subject: RE: Server to server mail routing failover - not clustered
If Server A and Server C are in the same LAN, then yes, they probably should be in the same DNN and then mail routing can be configured for A → B and C → B.
But since they’re in different DNN now, I imagine they’re not in the same LAN, so you’re probably better off with the connection documents.
What are the routing costs for your A → B connection, your A ->C connection and your C-> A connection?
If each connection currently has a cost of 1, try changing the cost of your A ->B cost to 2 while leaving A ->C and C ->B at 1.