From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: 32 Bit HPFS
Keywords: HPFS
Date: 3 Jan 93 03:37:16 GMT
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago

In article <9HTRwB3w165w@tcscs.UUCP> zeta%tcscs@src.honeywell.com writes:
>> >Will the new 2.1 release have the 32 bit HPFS included?
>> No.  HPFS386 is a part of LAN Server.  (It also provides some extra
>> features necessary for multiuser operation -- it isn't just a 32-bit
>> HPFS rewrite.)
>Forgive the obvious stupid question.  With OS/2 being such multitasking,
>there would be several useful features found in networks which would be
>useful for a stand alone system as well.  Of course I dont know much about
>LAN's and such, the only multiuser OS I'm familier with is VMS.  I'm talking
>about more abilities with file sharing, especially amongst files between
>several tasks.  More so if it makes programs not normally friendly for file
>access work more reliably in a shared environment.

Unless I'm missing something, that sort of control is already in OS/2.
(It's rather important in a single user, multitasking operating
system.)

I would agree that HPFS386's features can be useful in certain
contexts.  One such context is as a LAN server (which is why it comes
with LAN Server :-)).  For multiple serial users (as in a lab
setting), a security front end with protection for critical files is a
good idea; in that case, PC/DACS (Pyramid) is probably the way to go.

>> Lest anyone panic, 32-bit purely for the sake of 32-bit isn't such a
>> hot idea.  For one, you have to spend time debugging.  (In other
>> words, why tamper with code that is working so well?)  For another, it
>> isn't all that clear that you'd get much performance boost.  (A disk
>> -- any disk -- is relatively slow, in computer terms.  There's usually
>> very little CPU involved in disk I/O, and CPU intensive operations is
>> precisely where you get the biggest performance boost with 32-bit
>> code.)
>While this is true for the hardware, it still seems that 32-bit disk interface
>software could still increase performance.  I'm not very familier with the 
>two version file system in OS/2, other than that HPFS is very quick, and the
>FAT version is a lot faster than in DOS systems.  it seems that for some things
>HPFS is slower than a FAT system.  If it were to go 32 bit, wouldn't the HPFS
>be faster all the time?  

Not necessarily.  HPFS is more powerful in many respects, and in
certain rare instances FAT may outperform it.

I'm not arguing that there wouldn't be some improvement, other things
being equal.  I am, however, suggesting that it's probably one of the
last things you'd want to focus your efforts on.

I should note that I'm guessing a bit at IBM's motives here, but it
seems pretty obvious.  This is one particular design decision I can
more than live with; I don't think it makes sense to get pedantic
about 32-bit-ness.  The current HPFS code works just great, and I
can't see any overwhelming need to move it to 32-bit at present.  When
they do move it over, bonus points for IBM.

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc