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

From: Ronald A. Olshavsky <rono_at_netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1993 14:24:07 GMT
Message-ID: <ronoCHz9C7.24F_at_netcom.com>


Michael Stowe (Michael.Stowe_at_f573.n115.z1.fidonet.org) wrote:
: *** Quoting Hpujol_at_Dwp.La.Ca.Us to All dated 12-09-93 ***
: > This seems diffcult to believe since HPFS is supposedly
: > newer/faster/better!
 

: What? I don't know where you got that impression. FAT is quicker & more
: reliable than HPFS no matter who you ask, including IBM.
 

: In 1.3 and before, HPFS was slightly better than FAT because the code was
: better optimized -- since then, the entire OS has been tuned, and FAT is
: inherently quicker.

And Im not sure wher eyou got your info from, but for ME, HPFS is much faster/better then FAT.

I run a BBS under OS/2 2.1, and when tossing Fidomail, a FAT drive would take 12.5 mins, while an HPFS partition took 2.5 minutes...This is using the SAME tosser and packers, but done on the same packets on two different partitions of the same drive...

-- 
				     ,,,
				    (o o)
 +------------------------------oOO--(_)--OOo--------------------------------+
 |                                    |  It's a Mr. Death or something,      |
 | Ron A. Olshavsky - rono_at_netcom.com |  He's come about the reaping?        |
 |                                    |  I dont think we need any...  MP:MOL |
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
            <My opinions are my own...Who else would want them...>
Received on Mon Dec 13 1993 - 15:24:07 CET

Original text of this message