If one had a network-based NFS service of the user mail data, that would mean that

1. it would be easy to upgrade servers (data wouldn't move as it would have to if it was owned either by being directly connected to the mail server or connected over iSCSI)

True for directly connected storage, but nor for iSCSI. iSCSI storage is remote and would not have to move if the mail server is updated, only if the iSCSI server is replaced.

2. If other servers access the mail data, this is a load on the mail server if again, as above, it owns the disk resource either by direct attach or iSCSI.

Again, correct for local storage but not for iSCSI.

Better it would seem to me if there was a dedicated NFS network-based server that all clients could get to....

It's not the best idea to have multiple clients messing independently with your mail spool. We did that until this year, and I'm glad to be done with it... Now all mail access comes via dovecot, and my life is much easier...

Comments on that?

I don't think you understand iSCSI very well... But your arguments about direct attached versus NFS are solid.

-- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin

This message is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. Use this message at your own risk.