HFS+ vs UFS?

J5

certified wanker
I couldn't find too much on this subject so here it is:

What are the pros/cons of each format?

I only have access to HFS+. I was thinking of reformatting, and installing just X on UFS, and a minimal 9, with my most used apps.

My drive is only 2 gigs, and in os9 shows that i only have 136megs of free space! I have to do some cleanup right quick. how much does having my drive chock full affect OSX?
 

LunaMorena

Registered
Unless you're planning to quit using your computer as a workstation and just play server on it, stick with HFS+. UFS is a "flat" file system and does not allow for the same information that HFS+ stores for its files. The effect is that you lose a lot of information that is stored in your files such as what application is used to open it. Additionally, you will not be able to read a UFS volume while mounted to OS 9.
 

J5

certified wanker
Cool, thanks.

As far as X, aqua, and cocoa apps, is there a performance(speed) gain from using ufs?

With UFS, will classic and classic apps run? will it still boot 9 if it's on the same drive?

I remember in OSX server, the classic files were on a disk image. Is osx pb the same?

Thanks again for the input!

 

endian

Dis Member
As far as X, aqua, and cocoa apps, is there a performance(speed) gain from using ufs?
Probably - UFS doesn't keep track of all the meta information that HFS+ does, so there's less overhead.

With UFS, will classic and classic apps run? will it still boot 9 if it's on the same drive?
If 9 is installed on a HFS+ partition, it should run, which indicates that the answer to the next question is no. :)

I remember in OSX server, the classic files were on a disk image. Is osx pb the same?
Nope, the beta runs off a real actual install of 9. I don't know if it could be made to run off a disk image though; never tried it.
 
Top