ON Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 08:01:06AM -0600, Nate Straz wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 12:52:54AM -0600, Michael Burns wrote: > > A RAM-disk approach should work, but it may or may not be significantly > > faster than conventional disks. It's certainly unorthodox. > > 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. -- Michael