Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pdccs
From: pdccs@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Patrick D. Champion)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2
Subject: HPFS performance
Message-ID: <22705@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Date: 4 Mar 90 20:57:58 GMT
Reply-To: pdccs@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Patrick D. Champion)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Epidemiology Data Center
Lines: 10


	I am pretty much of a novice with OS/2 still. So, my question is:
I have just finished reading the OS/2 column in the March edition of Byte.
I had thought that HPFS was supposed to have a 30 to 400 percent improvement
in throughput over DOS FAT.  Yet, the writer often had HPFS comming out slower
than DOS FAT.  In two cases HPFS came out faster.  One case was negligibly 
faster, the other (random read/write) was 35 percent faster.
	What's going on here?  Why is HPFS performing so slowly?

Patrick Champion