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