RE: IFS vs Windows file serving

["Hayes, Joe" <joe.hayes@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.