Should I format my drive HFS+ or UFS?

[kon21]

What is the better file system to use? OS X supports UFS, is this a better option to use over HFS+ if I don't plan on running OS 9 on the computer?
What are the advantages of each?

thanks.

 

[Sogni]

No! Don't use UFS - it slows down your sytem badly and causes incompatibilities and whatnot...

It does not play well with OSX...

But I guess if you where using it for UNIX ONLY (no GUI) then it might be OK.

But if you use your Mac as a Mac was intended to be used - use HFS+.

 

[edX]

you might try doing a site search for UFS and see all the difficulties people have encountered with it. we once had a thread about whether os x was fast enough. after arguing for nearly 100 posts or more, it was finally revealed that the person who was moaning the loudest was running on UFS. after a reformat, he saw what we were talking about and the thread ended. don't let the Unix part of os x fool you. this is still a mac os and wil work best with a mac filesystem. go with HFS+. if you really want to have UFS, don't make it anything more than a partition for your 'nix stuff.

 

[GrBear]

Originally posted by kon21
What is the better file system to use? OS X supports UFS, is this a better option to use over HFS+ if I don't plan on running OS 9 on the computer?

When I first started using OS X back in the public beta days, I formatted my OS X partition in UFS. While UFS is a superior unix file system, it's a real dog under OS X.

Stick with HFS+ for now, otherwise you'll find that legacy (carbonized) software won't let you install itself to UFS partitions (because it doesn't do resource forks), OS 9 applications won't work with it (becoming a non-issue these days as less people use classic mode), and it slows OS X down (poor or little optimization?).

Personally, if they are going to do a half-baked job of implementing UFS, they shouldn't have even bothered.. but that's just my opinion..

I wonder if there's been any improvement to UFS in Jag.