Re: Is it true FAT is better than HPFS (Oracle OS/2)
Date: 14 Dec 93 16:41:58 GMT
Message-ID: <954_at_dwp.la.ca.us>
In article <ronoCHz9C7.24F_at_netcom.com>, <rono_at_netcom.com> writes:
>
> 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...
>
Since I have two drives (230 MB and 500 MB) maybe I could format the 230 MB
drive for HPFS and use it for OS/2, Oracle binaries, TCP/IP, and a portion
for NFS exporting (refer to a previous thread on lowercase translation problems
using IBM TCP/IP 1.2.1 for OS/2). Then I could format the 500 MB drive as FAT
and put my tablespaces there.
Would this work??
Hector Pujol
L. A. Dept of Water and Power
hpujol_at_dwp.la.ca.us
Received on Tue Dec 14 1993 - 17:41:58 CET