On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:12:43PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > If one looks at the FAT file system with an open mind and a clear understanding
> > of how it will be used, some small modifications may make it the functional
> > equivalent of a managed table space volume, at least under Linux.
>
> Can I ask if we are talking FAT16 (DOS) or FAT32 (NT)?
Does not matter. Arhitecture is same. FAT16 is not DOS-only,
and FAT32 is not NT-only. And there is VFAT16 and VFAT32...
Point 1 in this discussion seems to be that for storing WAL
files on a FAT-like fs seems to be better (less overhead) than
ext2/ufs like fs.
Point 2: as vendors do not think of FAT as critical fs, it is
probably not very optimised for things like SMP; also reliability
(this probably comes from FAT design itself (thats why it has
probably less overhead too...)).
Point 3: as FAT-like fs's are probably least-overhead
fs's, could we get any better with a pgfs implementation?
Conclusion: ?
--
marko
