HFS+ vs. UFS

[boz]

Hi *

Since the day of the final release comes closer, I am wondering which would be the filesystem to choose?
HFS+ or UFS? Is 9.1 able to read ufs volumes?
Are there performance issues? Which one are you going to choose?

boz

[gronos]

OS9.1 definitely CAN'T read ufs, so if you want to store files and use them between 9.1 and X, HFS+ is what you want to use. I've also seem postings (thought I have no direct evidence) that OSX runs "better" on HFS+ then on ufs partitions.

rich G.

[strobe]

UFS is useless unless you need to have filenames in the same directory like:

filename
FILENAME
fileNAME
FILEname
FiLeNaMe
fIlEnAmE

|-p

[ladavacm]

UFS is useless unless:

1) disk fragmentation matters
2) access privilege granularity matters
3) security levels matter
4) long file names matter
5) soft updates matter
6) read-ahead optimizations matter
7) guaranteed filesystem consistency matters (yes, even in case of catastrophic failure, short of actual loss of physical media)

... etc, etc, etc.

However, UFS does not:

1) have read nor write compatibility with older MacOS
2) support complex (i.e. forked) files

... etc, etc, etc.

In other words, it is a very good and quite safe general mass storage filesystem, given that the workload mix is mostly reads. With introduction of soft updates, fsck is no longer necessary, even after a system crash: in fact, the soft updates aware fsck operates on a read-write mounted filesystem (some kernel support required).

[VGZ]

Originally posted by ladavacm
long file names matter

HFS+ supports long file names. Its the current Mac OS that lacks the support.

[Sven]

How do OSX UFS/HFS+ installations compare in speed? My first installation of PB on an UFS volume was a lot slower than the following HFS+ installation.

Did others see this as well? What about later builds?

Sven

[drewe2000]

I will be the first to admit that UFS has a lot of benefits. However, in its current form OS X will suffer under UFS. Classic requires HFS+. Even if that's not an issue for you, OS X is optimized for HFS+, not UFS, and boots and runs substantially faster in HFS+. Additionally, AirPort does not work under UFS, but does under HFS+. This is because some of Apple's calls refer to AirPort as 'Airport' and others refer to it as 'AirPort'. In HFS+ this does not matter, but UFS is case-sensitive. There are probably other things that are broken under UFS. Until Apple fixes these issues, stick with HFS+, except (maybe) for external or extra storage drives.

[majortom]

I haven't checked yet, but is it possible to partition a single drive and have both a UFS and an HFS+ partition?

HFS+ isn't POSIX compliant and has much weaker security, so that for UN*X apps, it is inferior. However, since MacOS 9.x can't read UFS, you need to have both if you want to support 9.x apps.

/carmi