Virtually NO problems.
 
The only real problem I have had is if the SFS fails, then of course LISTSERV
fails, and you will lose interactive requests, possibly some files also, but
nothing that is critical. But that is not really different than if LISTSERV is
on mdisks. SFS is slightly slower than mdisks, but you should have LISTSERV's
priority set at 80+; force it lower than your general users. Also setting list
distribution to non-prime time helps. I do this with 'recreational lists' and
it doesn't generate any 'bitching' from the subscribers.
 
The largest advantages are: 1) better utilization of mdisk space; 2) ease of
minor changes/maintenance with the access authorities of SFS (I am assuming
here that YOU are an SFS administrator and can easily access anything under
SFS); 3) instant availability of any changes under SFS.
 
Yes I am an SFS fan. It can be a pig if used unwisely, but used carefully it's
great !!
 
+---------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
|   Russell N. Hathhorn                       |  Bitnet: SYSMAINT@PCCVM       |
|   VM Systems Progammer/Analyst              |  Compu$erve: 76636,1036       |
|   Portland Community College                |  Voice: (503) 244-6111 x 4705 |
|   12000 S. W. 49th Avenue                   |  Fax:   (503) 324-7010        |
|   Portland, Oregon  97219-0990              |  "     Just say NO to OCO   " |
+---------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms  |
|  is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."|
|   -- Thomas Jefferson                                                       |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+