I have been using syscp for quite a while and didn't want to upgrade to froxlor because our syscp installation has been altered to work on multiple servers, using one central database. The reasons for this are many. One of them: the need to separate functionality (and load), which is an absolute must in production environments.
So, we have 2 servers, one for our web services, one for mail. One of them is the database server, where all of them are name servers. And so on....
I was hoping for froxlor to support mulit-server environments, where one can easily activate services on a per-server basis. One very important one: backup MX.
When multiserver environments are supported by froxlor, we will migrate immediately. Even willing to pay for it! But until then, we stick to syscp, with all its downsides and bugs...
Question
edwinboersma
Hi,
I have been using syscp for quite a while and didn't want to upgrade to froxlor because our syscp installation has been altered to work on multiple servers, using one central database. The reasons for this are many. One of them: the need to separate functionality (and load), which is an absolute must in production environments.
So, we have 2 servers, one for our web services, one for mail. One of them is the database server, where all of them are name servers. And so on....
I was hoping for froxlor to support mulit-server environments, where one can easily activate services on a per-server basis. One very important one: backup MX.
When multiserver environments are supported by froxlor, we will migrate immediately. Even willing to pay for it! But until then, we stick to syscp, with all its downsides and bugs...
Regards,
Edwin Boersma
Fasterminds
Link to comment
Share on other sites
4 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.