Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: NT File System

Re: NT File System

From: Ng K C Paul <paulkcng_at_news.netvigator.com>
Date: 1998/09/01
Message-ID: <6sgh6j$okf$1@imsp009a.netvigator.com>#1/1

What is good caching controller?

Hatheway, Darwin L (dlhatheway_at_mmm.com) wrote:
: You probably want to check and see if SQL 7 supports RAW before you decide.
: Conventional wisdom is that RAW won't buy you noticeably improved
: performance on NT anyway. RAW is sometimes used in UNIX to keep the file
: system from screwing up DBMS files and I can't remember any postings to NGs
: where NTFS problems caused DB corruption.
:
: My $.02 - if I/O performance is troubling you 1 - buy more memory, 2 - get
: lots of really good caching controllers, 3 - use stripe sets judiciously and
: 4 - look at using segments to balance your workload across your devices
: intelligently.
:
: HTH
:
: Ng K C Paul wrote in message <6s7uc5$hf6$1_at_imsp009a.netvigator.com>...
: >I think NT 5.0 should support FAT32, am I right?
: >
: >Someone said raw partition is better in multi-user environment than
: >single user, right?
: >
: >Neil Pike (100577.553_at_compuserve.com) wrote:
: >: > What kind of File System should I install the database software and
: >: > data and log to? FAT or NTFS? I know that the security is better in
 NTFS.
: >: > Also, there is a compress option in NTFS. In unix, raw device is more
: >: > reliable than unix file system which has disk cache that can speed up
: >: > certain I/O operations. What about performance on NT?
: >:
: >: Ng,
: >:
: >: FAT is marginally better for writes, NTFS for reads, but really there's
 not much
: >: difference. You can use raw partitions with SQL 6.x, but I wouldn't
 recommend it - too much
: >: of a pain for minimal gain.
: >:
: >: >
: >: > In WIN97/98, there is also FAT32. Should I use it to install
: >: > MS-SQLServer 7.0, Personal Oracle8 or Adaptive SQLServer Anywhere
 Studio?
: >: > It seems that FAT32 can save more space than FAT but NT4.0 cannot read
: >: > files on FAT32, am I right? Also, is there any difference on backup
 and
: >: > recovery time on different file system?
: >:
: >: SQL is file system independent, so FAT32 should work fine. You can read
 FAT32 on NT with a
: >: 3rd party driver from www.sysinternals.com
: >:
: >: Neil Pike MVP/MCSE
: >: Protech Computing Ltd
: >:
: >:
:
:
:
:
: Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
:
Received on Tue Sep 01 1998 - 00:00:00 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US