On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 11:05:27AM -0600, Michael Burns wrote: > ON Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 08:01:06AM -0600, Nate Straz wrote: > > Don't be silly. You should be able to tune the OS's disk caching enough > > that it's as fast as a RAM disk and not as dangerous. "Imagine running > > this on a ramdisk" is just like saying, "imagine a beowulf of these." > > It's a mail queue. I wouldn't expect the system to hit the files often enough > for the cache to make a difference, and so I'm not sure your objection applies. You're assuming that only reads are cached. For most OS file system caches, this assumption is incorrect. Write file once (to cache pending disk write), read file once (from cache, may or may not have made it onto disk), delete file (from cache, possible pending delete from disk if it ever got written for real). Like Nate said, as fast as a ramdisk and not as dangerous, even though the file isn't being hit repeatedly. -- When we reduce our own liberties to stop terrorism, the terrorists have already won. - reverius Innocence is no protection when governments go bad. - Tom Swiss