IBM does recommend using FAT over NTFS because of the overhead of NTFS..
NTFS has additional overhead because it writes security information and does
other things like hot fixing which provides a limited fault tolerance.

But if I need a 20Gig storage pool for example.. I will need to create at
least 5 additional partitions (FAT limit of 4 Gig per partition). NT is
going to have overhead associated with tracking 5 additional partitions.
With NTFS I can create one single 20Gig partition. There's less overhead
associated with tracking one partition.
I think you'd need to do some testing and figure out which one was best. In
my tests I saw little gain with FAT over NTFS. I reckon you'll get far more
performance by investing in a better disk controller or LVD Scsi disks.

Interestingly I noted that when I formatted (dsmfmt) storage pool volumes
(each one was 2 Gig) it took forever to complete if the FS was FAT, with
NTFS the format took seconds to complete. Not sure why this is so...

Nathan



        -----Original Message-----
        From:   Paul Oh [SMTP:paulo AT SPECTRUMWAY DOT COM]
        Sent:   Thursday, March 26, 1998 8:22 AM
        To:     ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
        Subject:        NT - NTFS vs. FAT for disk pools

        A question on disk pools for NT:

        Is there any performance advantage to using  NTFS  vs. FAT  when
creating
        the disk storage pools?

        I also agree with Bill that raw logical volumes are better than JFS
in AIX.

        thanks,
        Paul Oh