On Tuesday 18 November 2008, s. keeling wrote: > Hal Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Seriously, the reason I've been thinking about keeping the mail on > > the sending system is to make reference easier -- in case the mail > > server goes wrong or something. In the past it seems like things > > go wrong in bunches, so I've started to plan for multiple failures > > when I'm setting things up. If the messages stay on the > > originating system until KMail picks them up, then there's no > > chance of them getting lost on a 3rd system. > > I would think it more important to get them off those other machines > and onto the mail server so they can be backed up now. There's what, > fifve harddrives on those machines which may fail at any time. The > server's only got one drive for you to worry about, and presumably it > gets far better care than the satellite systems.
I think you're thinking of the 4 drive RAID you've heard me mention either here or in another list. The system I'm working with now does have a RAID, but /var is on a single drive which, at this point, is almost brand new. And since this is on my *business* system (called Scarecrow, since it's the brains of the outfit), as in the 'puter that generates the data that I sell to pay the rent, it is the box that gets 1st priority on hardware. If I had some serious problem, I could install dnsmasq and a couple other programs on Scarecrow and run it on its own but the mail/dns/print server is on an embedded Soekris box with a smaller hard drive and could never handle the workload Scarecrow does. > > > >> If you don't agree with me, you are worse than Hitler!!! > > > > > > > > You mean there are people who agree with you?!? > > > > > > Only those who are right-minded... > > > > You misspelled Reich. > > Don't ask him about Paris Hilton. I don't even bother with (media) sluts. Hal
