Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


UFS v HFS+ | 45 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'UFS v HFS+' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
UFS v HFS+
Authored by: ewan on Dec 31, '02 07:04:28AM

If you want the true unix experience I recommend using UFS instead of HFS+, okay so there is no journalling option and mozilla won't run (needs resource forks.....) but chimera does. You also have the benefit that UFS is case sensitive. To do this you will need to reinstall OS X and reformat the drives with disk utility.



[ Reply to This | # ]
UFS v HFS+ - breaks os9
Authored by: cynikal on Dec 31, '02 07:02:25PM

i thought about this too at first but found out that os 9 will NOT run on ufs.. it requires hfs (or hfs+)



[ Reply to This | # ]
UFS v HFS+
Authored by: ewan on Jan 01, '03 11:35:12AM

Then again, if like me, you are a unix user you probably have no need for OS9.
I did consider the whole OS9/Classic thing but realised there were no reasons to have it - it's not as if unix switchers have OS9 software they wish to keep using and getting rid of OS9 frees up another gig or so of disk space.
There is also experimental support for rw on ufs in the newer linux kernels which would be an advantage if you wanted to dual boot. The only issue I'm not clear on is if Mac on Linux would work with ufs.
So far (3 months) UFS has served me nicely with none of the afformentioned issues about cp/tar etc.



[ Reply to This | # ]
UFS v HFS+ caution
Authored by: SOX on Jan 02, '03 10:57:41AM

While UFS has its uses I feel its probably not a good general recommendation for users switching to mac. In my view the primary needs UFS occur in two situations, one is if the mac is working as a disk server to Linux/sun/unix computers. There OS independent transparency to the external world may have priority. (indeed my xserves export their UFS partitions for this reason) The other is the rare case where the users are porting unix packages in such a wholsale fashion that they cannot anticiapte or correct name capitalization problems. In most circumstances, correcting filename capitalization is just one of many porting issues one needs to address, but not a good reason to abandon HFS+.

That being said, I would highly reccomend against not installing HFS+. First of all, apple does not support booting from UFS. SO while you may be able to boot your computer now, a single auto-upgrade could disable your computer. At various times, Airport and OS 9.0 have been broken by UFS. Moreover, on a mac UFS is slower and lacks some disk tools. Finally, when the new user goes elsewhere and uses another mac UFS will (likely) not be present.

Minimally, it is advisable to maintain a HFS+ partition for the OS and apps. But if you are going to do that, there is some logic to just learing to use HFS+. They are not all that different, that one cannot just get used to it, just as unix users have to get used to different dialects of unix.



[ Reply to This | # ]
UFS v HFS+ caution
Authored by: SOX on Jan 02, '03 11:17:47AM

While UFS has its uses I feel its probably not a good general recommendation for users switching to mac. In my view the primary needs UFS occur in two situations, one is if the mac is working as a disk server to Linux/sun/unix computers. There OS independent transparency to the external world may have priority. (indeed my xserves export their UFS partitions for this reason) The other is the rare case where the users are porting unix packages in such a wholsale fashion that they cannot anticiapte or correct name capitalization problems. In most circumstances, correcting filename capitalization is just one of many porting issues one needs to address, but not a good reason to abandon HFS+.

That being said, I would highly reccomend against not installing HFS+. First of all, apple does not support booting from UFS. SO while you may be able to boot your computer now, a single auto-upgrade could disable your computer. At various times, Airport and OS 9.0 have been broken by UFS. Moreover, on a mac UFS is slower and lacks some disk tools. Finally, when the new user goes elsewhere and uses another mac UFS will (likely) not be present.

Minimally, it is advisable to maintain a HFS+ partition for the OS and apps. But if you are going to do that, there is some logic to just learing to use HFS+. They are not all that different, that one cannot just get used to it, just as unix users have to get used to different dialects of unix.



[ Reply to This | # ]
UFS v HFS+
Authored by: linkert on Jan 05, '03 01:49:29PM

This is rubbish, sorry. Apple's implementation of UFS is very old and has nothing to do with the UFS FreeBSD uses nowadays (e.g. soft updates are not implemented). UFS on the Mac is extremely slow, it is not supported by Apple, and a number of apps refuse to run on it. I would therefore not recommend it to _anyone_ using Mac OS X as a desktop OS. The server side is certainly different altho anyone with brains should get an Intel box (using Linux or *BSD with it) for that matter.



[ Reply to This | # ]