OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance...
From: Matthew Hawkins (matthewtopic.com.au)
Date: Sun Mar 05 2000 - 23:53:49 CST

On 2000-03-05 13:59:56 +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> According to RFC 1123, the Internet Host Requirements document,
> you *MUST* *NOT* lose e-mail, just because of something stupid like a
> power failure, so you cannot use Linux with asynchronous writes on a
> sendmail mqueue or a postfix mail queue.

Sure you can. When the power is finally cut, the system has already
synced and shutdown cleanly because the UPS has alerted it beforehand.

Or don't BSD people believe in UPS's because Linux people use them?
(asynchronous writes are bad because we don't do it, POSIX conformity is
bad because we don't do it, our TCP/IP implementation is the standard
even though it conflicts RFC's because we invented sockets, ...)

You can be defeated by hardware caching anyway (IDE drives come standard
with 2Mb of cache these days, decent SCSI controllers have more) so the
power-failure argument is flawed from that perspective too.

People subscribe here to talk about a rather nice cross-platform MTA
called postfix, not to be fed anti-Linux crap from BSD bigots. Try to
appreciate anything that can be considered Unix-like, you'll miss them
when middle-managers turn everything into Windows NT and wonder why
armageddon arrived early.

Cheers, 

-- 
Matt            "...the only place for 63,000 bugs is a rain forest"