RE: IFS vs Windows file serving

I would suggest a simple test to begin with...

Simply get a very large file and copy it to and from the old share, then
do the same to and from the new.  This will give good indication of the
REAL increase / decrease in performance that you're going to see,
although it will not tell you detailed information about which
environmental factors are responsible for any change. 

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces+joe.hayes=fiserv.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces+joe.hayes=fiserv.com@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Trevor Perry
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:28 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: IFS vs Windows file serving

Tony,

From experience, I have found the IFS to be comparable to most Windows

servers. There is one caveat - the QDLS folder and subfolders perform
horribly.

Trevor


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Corbett" <corbett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: IFS vs Windows file serving

Hi,

I recently moved a bunch of Access databases to the IFS.got tired of
"fighting" with the Windows admins over needed disk space.



Anyway, is there some information on the relative performance of "IFS

file

serving" as compared to "Windows file serving"?  I CAN move these 
databases
to an IXS Win2000 server if this will make a big difference in

performance

for users accessing these Access "databases".



TIA



Tony Corbett

AS/Resources, Inc.