Jure Pečar wrote: > >> *shudder* That may be so in terms of performance, but what about >> reliability and longevity? Given RH's treatment of non-ext3 FSs (and >> reiserfs's murky future in general), I'd be *very* hesitant to use >> reiserfs for anything. > > As long as your hw is ok, reiserfs works (>=2.4.18, dont know about 2.6). When you get a noncorrected bitflip in memory, it tends to propagate down to fs and make a nonnoticeable or huge disaster, depending on where it lands. That's true for all filesystems, see: > http://www.cs.wisc.edu/adsl/Publications/iron-sosp05.pdf > > Solaris10 ZFS is immune to that thanks to its cheksumming. I think it is a lot to ask from a filesystem to fix memory errors that already happened in the buffer space before writing it out and I don't have a lot of faith in that really working. Anyway the 'old-school' way of handling a lot of mail users was to use a NetApp filer with whatever number of mail servers you needed for the user load doing NFS mounts and using maildir format to minimize the locking issues. It should still be a sure bet. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com