Re: Oracle 8i for NT work with FAT ?

It's full rubbish

FAT is much faster

NTFS is for file servers, not db servers

All what is written about NTFS (recoverable, chains/abandoned clusters etc) have no effect on quality of database itself and db files.

"andrew_webby at hotmail" <spam_at_no.thanks.com> wrote in message news:987778081.23095.0.nnrp-10.c30bdde2_at_news.demon.co.uk...
> Perhaps the most 'superior' feature of NTFS is that it is a logged file
> system. If you get a machine crash whilst on FAT, chances are you have to
> fire up CHKDSK and deal with lost chains/abandoned clusters etc. In the
 case
> of Oracle, that would almost undoubtedly mean a database restore and
 recover
> (if applicable) if you lose even one cluster within your multi-gb
 datafiles.
>
> NT replays the NTFS log at startup hoping to keep the datafile consistent
> (so a bit like Oracle itself then). This isn't to say things will work out
> 100% 100% of the time, but you get the general idea...
>
> Obviously, r/w to NTFS isn't as fast as r/w to FAT then, but you gain in
> security and resilience what you lose in performance. At the end of the
 day,
> it's your choice.
>
> "Niall Litchfield" <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk> wrote in message
> news:3ae03d76$0$15025$ed9e5944_at_reading.news.pipex.net...
> > supports access control lists i.e. security,disk quotas, configurable
 block
> > size spring immediately to mind.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niall Litchfield
> > Oracle DBA
> > Audit Commission UK
> > "wayne" <no_at_email.please.com> wrote in message
> > news:9bp6sg$mqv_at_dispatch.concentric.net...
> > > > yes but IMO you'd be absolutely barmy to do so. Why would you use
 FAT
 as
> > > > opposed to the superior NTFS?
> > >
> > > Superior in what way as it regards Oracle?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sat Apr 21 2001 - 01:32:59 CDT