Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!emory!ox.com!math.fu-berlin.de!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!ux.acs.umn.edu!spexet From: spexet@ux.acs.umn.edu (D. Robert Spexet II) Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc Subject: Re: OS/2 with AT clone, Adaptec 1542B, and SCSI drive Message-ID: <3919@ux.acs.umn.edu> Date: 14 May 91 01:01:11 GMT References: <1991May9.032806.26589@netcom.COM> <1991May13.140346.560@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Lines: 28 In article <1991May13.140346.560@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> tshea@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes: >This saturday, myself, our other LAN Admin, and our 2 IBM SE's will be >upgrading our 3 servers to OS/2 1.3. We are replacing the main drive in our >domain controller (an ESDI drive) with a 300 meg SCSI drive and according to >IBM, HPFS works fine and they are almost forcing us to put HPFS on that SCSI >drive. I guess I will find out this weekend and will post our results. > On our server (a single server servicing 20 workstations, so it is also the domain controller as well), we run HPFS on both of our drives (a 115-meg ESDI and a 320-meg SCSI.) Although I have no hard numbers to show you all, it cer- tainly seems (in a subjective sense, anyway) that HPFS is *much* faster than FAT, especially when the server is doing write operations. We ran FAT at first, to do a speed comparison. The FAT system bogged down when there were a lot of files in any particular directory. Locating and opening those files took a lot of time to do, especially when compared to HPFS. So, at least on IBM drives and controllers, the FAT *and* HPFS file systems work just dandy. Hope this helps, -D. Robert Spexet II, P.O. Box 14909, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414-0909 U.S.A. Internet: spexet@ux.acs.umn.edu BITnet: spexet@umnacux UUCP: rutgers!umn-cs!ux.acs.umn.edu!spexet