UFS or HFS+ ???

What File system do you use ???

  • UFS

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • HFS+

    Votes: 27 93.1%
  • HFS

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NTFS

    Votes: 5 17.2%
  • Fat32

    Votes: 1 3.4%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .

DualG4X

Registered
could someone help me out here and tell me if there are any benefits in choosing UFS instead of the regular HFS+ ??? is it like comparing ntfs to fat32 ??
 
Everything that I have heard points to the fact that OS X on UFS is slow. Real slow. Mind bogglingly slow. Did I mention slow? ;)

The only advantage that I can think of off the top of my head is that a Unix OS would be able to read your HD, so it's possible that you could set up a dual boot OS X/Linux system. I think, don't quote me on that.
 
Originally posted by DualG4X
could someone help me out here and tell me if there are any benefits in choosing UFS instead of the regular HFS+ ??? is it like comparing ntfs to fat32 ??

If you wanted a comparison:

NTFS is to FAT32 what HFS+ is to UFS.

I think that covers that part. When would you want UFS? Only if you have a special need that requires it. If you don't know what you would need it for, you most likely don't need it (a headless web server sitting in a closet would be a good example of when it might be used).
 
I think it's a little unfair to say that UFS is slower than HFS+. THere are some things that get done faster on a UFS system, I believe it deals with small files faster, etc. But overall speed is much better on HFS+. There are limited applications where UFS would be best, but basically if you have to ask... you need to be using HFS+.
 
Originally posted by Lazarus18
I think it's a little unfair to say that UFS is slower than HFS+.
If you'll note in my original post, I said "everything that I have heard". So if you have evidence towards the contrary please share. I'm not trying to decide one way or another. I'm using HFS+, and intend to continue to do so, so I have no personal experience with the speed of OS X on UFS.
 
I think testuser mentioned what I was speaking of, cp, mv and all those things are often faster (I've seen posts indicating they can be dramatically faster) on UFS systems.

That being said I've only used HFS+ and intend to keep doing so. I was just (academically really) pointing out that for rare people UFS has advantages. 99% of us are not those people though.
 
Thanks alot eveyone for all that info. Does anyone know if apple will comeout with another file sytem, something more stable n secure n faster, ive read somewere that Be's file system was alot better compared to HFS+
 
I haven't heard anything to indicate that apple is planning something past HFS+. Be got bought by Palm, and while many thought Apple would buy it and incorporate parts of their technology it didn't happen, so I don't know how keen Apple is on their stuff.

There are some problems with HFS+, but I don't see a new FS any time soon. Perhaps eventually they would support XFS or something, but I think HFS+ is it for the foreseeable future.
 
Originally posted by Lazarus18
IBe got bought by Palm,

Be got bought by palm, but two of the architects of the Be filesystem are at apple right now, working on their filesystem. now i m not saying that i ve heard anything about a new filesystem. i haven t. not even vague distant rumors. however, i would bet as much as $3 (i m pretty poor), that they have something in development.

1. My first clue is that they hired the BFS guys. i read an interview with them only a couple of months ago. again, there was nothing about a new filesystem. this is all my speculation.

2. every OS in the industry is waking up to the benefits of journaling filesystems. they are now default on a lot of linux distros. MS is working on a content loaded filesystem, so that their word, access, WMA files are all transparent to the filesystem. It would be foolish of apple to be left behind in filesystem technologies when the rest of the industry is clearly changing. NB: this isn t really a clue that apple is developing a FS, only that they should be.

3. OSX is not really meant for HFS. right now OSX runs on HFS because it has to for compatibility. but you will notice how apple is advising people that they don t have to use the creator code and type code in the resource fork anymore. they can just use file extensions. OSX has UNIX tools in its chest, and almost none of them has any knowledge of the resource fork, the the underlying OS carries this overhead in the filesystem that it is simply not using.

Also as any traditional UNIX would, darwin sometimes expects case sensitivity, which HFS cannot provide. in other words, OSX and HFS are two strangers that we forced to get into bed together. again, this isn t a clue that apple is developing, just that they should be.

4. i m not sure what the specs of HFS are, but eventually hardware will outgrow it. this is sort of a blanket. i guess that anyone who has a filesystem has to be cognizant of its hardware constraints, and ready to upgrade it when the time is right.

so because of these reasons, i think it would be really stupid of apple not to be working on their next filesystem. i don t think it will come in the next 2 years, but i have no idea. and of course apple is very tightlipped about future projects.

anyway, i cast my vote for XFS (steve jobs, are you listening?)
 
Is it possible to have two Volumes, one formatted in HFS+ and the other formatted in UFS, on the same Harddrive?

If so, is there any benefit?

Just hanging those questions out there while we're on the subject.

Thanks.:)
SA
 
yes, it is possible. in fact i have three HFS+ partitions and one UFS partition on one of my drives right now. the main advantage of UFS is that it is case sensitive, which is required by some UNIX apps. apache has some problems with HFS for that reason, and so do some of the darwin build tools
 
Originally posted by testuser
If you do some unix related work, I would suggest using the Disk Copy app to mount an UFS formatted disk image. You could also format a non-boot volume with UFS.

That is a great idea! :rolleyes: I wish I had thought of it.
 
Originally posted by lethe


Be got bought by palm, but two of the architects of the Be filesystem are at apple right now, working on their filesystem. now i m not saying that i ve heard anything about a new filesystem. i haven t. not even vague distant rumors. however, i would bet as much as $3 (i m pretty poor), that they have something in development.

I read that somewhere too. I also read that 2 are workign a Microsoft of r a nextgen Windows filesystem. Could Be just a rumour though....
 
Back
Top