Re: Is it true FAT is better than HPFS (Oracle OS/2)

From: Francis Wang <wangf_at_interaccess.com>
Date: 10 Dec 1993 16:48:05 GMT
Message-ID: <2ea985$oml_at_mailhost.interaccess.com>

hpujol_at_dwp.la.ca.us wrote:

: The Oracle documentation for Oracle V6.0 for OS/2 states that it is better to
: use FAT rather than HPFS for Oracle data files.

: This seems diffcult to believe since HPFS is supposedly newer/faster/better!

: Does anyone have any benchmarks or other thoughts on this?

I believe this is true, although I have not done any performance benchmark on Oracle. I used to work a lot with SQL Server on OS/2 and Microsoft had actually done benchmark test on this. All the result seem to indicate that HPFS does not increase database server performance. I think this is because Oracle and SQL Server preallocate database files. The FAT causes a lot of overhead when dealing with files that are dynamicallyt extended. It is also possible that the database server by pass the file systems to some degree. Received on Fri Dec 10 1993 - 17:48:05 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Michael Stowe: "Is it true FAT is better than HPFS (Oracle OS/2)"
Previous message: Marco.Tosi: "Help needed: grant/synonym technique"
In reply to: hpujol_at_dwp.la.ca.us: "Is it true FAT is better than HPFS (Oracle OS/2)"
In reply to hpujol_at_dwp.la.ca.us: "Is it true FAT is better than HPFS (Oracle OS/2)"
Next in thread: Michael Stowe: "Is it true FAT is better than HPFS (Oracle OS/2)"
Reply: Michael Stowe: "Is it true FAT is better than HPFS (Oracle OS/2)"
Reply: hpujol_at_dwp.la.ca.us: "Re: Is it true FAT is better than HPFS (Oracle OS/2)"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message