On 9/5/07, Trevor Talbot <quension@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/5/07, Carlo Stonebanks <stonec.register@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > > Right, additionally NTFS is really nothing to use on any serious disc
> > > > array.
> > >
> > > Do you mean that I will not see any big improvement if I upgrade the disk
> > > subsystem because the client is using NTFS (i.e. Windows)
> >
> > No, I think he's referring more to the lack of reliability of NTFS
> > compared to UFS / ZFS / JFS / XFS on unixen.
>
> Lack of reliability compared to _UFS_? Can you elaborate on this?
Oh, the other issue that NTFS still seems to suffer from that most
unix file systems have overcome is fragmentation. Since you can't
defrag a live system, you have to plan time to take down the db should
the NTFS partition for your db get overly fragmented.
And there's the issue that with windows / NTFS that when one process
opens a file for read, it locks it for all other users. This means
that things like virus scanners can cause odd, unpredictable failures
of your database.