Re: SSI finally writes a good news release - OS2

This is a discussion on Re: SSI finally writes a good news release - OS2 ; On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:03:17 UTC, letoured@nospam.net wrote: > >I would think that, at this point in time, you would want to use a > >better filesystem than HPFS. > > Actually no there isn't a better system. Wrong. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Re: SSI finally writes a good news release

  1. Re: SSI finally writes a good news release

    On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:03:17 UTC, letoured@nospam.net wrote:

    > >I would think that, at this point in time, you would want to use a
    > >better filesystem than HPFS.

    >
    > Actually no there isn't a better system.


    Wrong. JFS is much better because
    - max filesize: 2TB
    - max volumesize: 2TB
    - automagically extend the volume to eat another partition
    from the same or another physical drive
    max. extensions: 127
    max. drives connectable: 127
    - saves drive letters for other usage
    - saves time to backup, format, restore current data
    - recovers from system crash in 1/1000 the time HPFS needs to go
    through chkdsk.
    HPFS needs for the same size hours or days - JFS minutes only to get
    chkdsk complete
    - try to create an 64GB partiton/volumeand make it about 80% full and
    let chkdsk run on it after system (power) failture. You'll wait for
    some hours to get it clean.
    - Use the same hardware and place JFS on it. Fill it up like you've
    done with HPFS, end with a power failture - only some minutes chkdsk
    and the disk is clean.

    > HPFS has no limit on the number
    > of files and they will never make a hard drive bigger then the limits of
    > the system -- and most importantly, if there is a drive failure and if its
    > been formatted with the /L switch, there is a 99.9% chance that I can
    > recover just about everything on the drive.


    You speaks about JFS too.

    >
    > >My recollection is that HPFS is limited to 2gig files, and 64gig
    > >partitions. Both significant limitations in a world of 300+gig hard
    > >drives.

    >
    > I think 2 gig is correct. I think the partition size is wrong, and I
    > don't care anyway. I'm not going to use a windoze system.


    No, HPFS owns this limits:
    - max. file size: 2GB
    - max. partiton size: 64GB
    - no capability to hot extend the volume
    You have to backup the volume, extend it (up to 64GB anyway),
    format it again and then restore the backup.


    > >If you want a small server that supports EA, then a very small
    > >footprint PC with OS/2 support would probably be a better choice, with
    > >JFS as the shared drive.

    >
    > There are recovery problems with JFS. Far fewer with HPFS.


    That information is outdated since 3 years!

    --
    Tschau/Bye
    Herbert

    Visit http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
    eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!

  2. Re: SSI finally writes a good news release


    There is no *JFS recovery utility that equals utilities for HPFS.





    In , on 01/18/2006
    at 06:50 AM, "Herbert Rosenau" said:



    >On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:03:17 UTC, letoured@nospam.net wrote:


    >> >I would think that, at this point in time, you would want to use a
    >> >better filesystem than HPFS.

    >>
    >> Actually no there isn't a better system.


    >Wrong. JFS is much better because
    >- max filesize: 2TB
    >- max volumesize: 2TB
    >- automagically extend the volume to eat another partition
    > from the same or another physical drive
    > max. extensions: 127
    > max. drives connectable: 127
    > - saves drive letters for other usage
    > - saves time to backup, format, restore current data
    >- recovers from system crash in 1/1000 the time HPFS needs to go through
    >chkdsk.
    > HPFS needs for the same size hours or days - JFS minutes only to get
    >chkdsk complete
    >- try to create an 64GB partiton/volumeand make it about 80% full and
    >let chkdsk run on it after system (power) failture. You'll wait for some
    >hours to get it clean.
    >- Use the same hardware and place JFS on it. Fill it up like you've done
    >with HPFS, end with a power failture - only some minutes chkdsk and the
    >disk is clean.


    >> HPFS has no limit on the number
    >> of files and they will never make a hard drive bigger then the limits of
    >> the system -- and most importantly, if there is a drive failure and if its
    >> been formatted with the /L switch, there is a 99.9% chance that I can
    >> recover just about everything on the drive.


    >You speaks about JFS too.
    >
    >>
    >> >My recollection is that HPFS is limited to 2gig files, and 64gig
    >> >partitions. Both significant limitations in a world of 300+gig hard
    >> >drives.

    >>
    >> I think 2 gig is correct. I think the partition size is wrong, and I
    >> don't care anyway. I'm not going to use a windoze system.


    >No, HPFS owns this limits:
    >- max. file size: 2GB
    >- max. partiton size: 64GB
    >- no capability to hot extend the volume
    > You have to backup the volume, extend it (up to 64GB anyway),
    > format it again and then restore the backup.
    >
    >
    >> >If you want a small server that supports EA, then a very small
    >> >footprint PC with OS/2 support would probably be a better choice, with
    >> >JFS as the shared drive.

    >>
    >> There are recovery problems with JFS. Far fewer with HPFS.


    >That information is outdated since 3 years!





  3. Re: SSI finally writes a good news release

    letoured@nospam.net wrote:
    > There is no *JFS recovery utility that equals utilities for HPFS.


    The disk tools for HPFS are generally the best but there are some
    utilities now for JFS. JFS is a great file system and has compelling
    features. My main problem with JFS is that it isn't supported anymore
    by IBM and its reliability record has not been anywhere near as good as
    HPFS. The last fixpack for JFS was in Warp 4.52 fixpack 5 and fixpack 5
    had other issues that made it unusable. The fixpack 4 JFS was still
    somewhat weak. Perhaps fixpack 5 really did fix JFS and you could
    selectively apply the fixpack 5 jfs files, though, and then jfs might be
    a good supplement to hpfs.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > In , on 01/18/2006
    > at 06:50 AM, "Herbert Rosenau" said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:03:17 UTC, letoured@nospam.net wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>>I would think that, at this point in time, you would want to use a
    >>>>better filesystem than HPFS.
    >>>
    >>>Actually no there isn't a better system.

    >
    >
    >>Wrong. JFS is much better because
    >>- max filesize: 2TB
    >>- max volumesize: 2TB
    >>- automagically extend the volume to eat another partition
    >> from the same or another physical drive
    >> max. extensions: 127
    >> max. drives connectable: 127
    >> - saves drive letters for other usage
    >> - saves time to backup, format, restore current data
    >>- recovers from system crash in 1/1000 the time HPFS needs to go through
    >>chkdsk.
    >> HPFS needs for the same size hours or days - JFS minutes only to get
    >>chkdsk complete
    >>- try to create an 64GB partiton/volumeand make it about 80% full and
    >>let chkdsk run on it after system (power) failture. You'll wait for some
    >>hours to get it clean.
    >>- Use the same hardware and place JFS on it. Fill it up like you've done
    >>with HPFS, end with a power failture - only some minutes chkdsk and the
    >>disk is clean.

    >
    >
    >>>HPFS has no limit on the number
    >>>of files and they will never make a hard drive bigger then the limits of
    >>>the system -- and most importantly, if there is a drive failure and if its
    >>>been formatted with the /L switch, there is a 99.9% chance that I can
    >>>recover just about everything on the drive.

    >
    >
    >>You speaks about JFS too.
    >>
    >>
    >>>>My recollection is that HPFS is limited to 2gig files, and 64gig
    >>>>partitions. Both significant limitations in a world of 300+gig hard
    >>>>drives.
    >>>
    >>>I think 2 gig is correct. I think the partition size is wrong, and I
    >>>don't care anyway. I'm not going to use a windoze system.

    >
    >
    >>No, HPFS owns this limits:
    >>- max. file size: 2GB
    >>- max. partiton size: 64GB
    >>- no capability to hot extend the volume
    >> You have to backup the volume, extend it (up to 64GB anyway),
    >> format it again and then restore the backup.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>If you want a small server that supports EA, then a very small
    >>>>footprint PC with OS/2 support would probably be a better choice, with
    >>>>JFS as the shared drive.
    >>>
    >>>There are recovery problems with JFS. Far fewer with HPFS.

    >
    >
    >>That information is outdated since 3 years!

    >
    >
    >
    >



    --
    Posted with OS/2 Warp 4.52
    and IBM Web Browser v2.0.2

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2