mqueue.in and mqueue

[paddy]

On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:08:50PM -0500, Chris Conn wrote:
> >
> >Wouldn't that be very risky? Using tmpfs for
> >/var/spool/MailScanner/incoming is risk free though.
> >
>
> I already have tmpfs for incoming.  The risk is minimal and acceptable
> on a stable system.  At least such is my opinion.
>
> >>Can someone educate me as to why the two must reside on the same
> >>partition or filesystem?  What is the reasoning behind this (I don't
> >>want to generalize it as a limitation, but in my case it certainly feels
> >>that way)?
> >
> >
> >When MailScanner moves the message from the incoming queue to the
> >outgoing it's a much lighter operation if it's the same file system.
>
> It would be even less if it is from RAM to disk instead of same-disk to
> same-disk though would it not?

I should have so much RAM :)

If you're happy running your mail spool on a tmpfs (not that I'm
encouraging you, mind you) why not put mqueue there as well ??

Regards,
Paddy
--
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the MAQ (http://www.mailscanner.biz/maq/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!