Unix File Format vs HFS+?

rmundschau

Registered
When you install OS-X and you select the option to wipe the target partition, you can format the partition as HFS+ or the Unix file format. Has anyone tried using the Unix File format option? I am planning to try it myself later tonight and see how well it works. I was wondering if anyone knew if it has problems before hand so I don't waste time. I can't find any documentation on this. I would be interested to see benchmarks to know if one format is superior to the other.

Can anybody help on this question?

Thanks
 

sepia

Registered
Depends on what you're doing. If you are going to be doing a lot of Darwin work, UFS will be more friendly to any UNIX software you install. If not, go with HFS. I've heard it's actually faster. Can anyone confirm this? I know HFS is a lot faster when doing file searches. Plus, you can't index a UFS volume.
 

marmoset

Official Volunteer
Originally posted by sepia
Depends on what you're doing. If you are going to be doing a lot of Darwin work, UFS will be more friendly to any UNIX software you install. If not, go with HFS. I've heard it's actually faster. Can anyone confirm this? I know HFS is a lot faster when doing file searches. Plus, you can't index a UFS volume.
This isn't scientific by any means, (because of the difference between the PB and the final),
but my subjective experience is that certain "pure" Unix apps are faster (or at least
tremendously more convenient) from a UFS volume than from an HFS+ volume.
My OSX PB system was set up as a single large HFS+ volume. I run the
small-site Usenet server software Leafnode (http://www.leafnode.org),
which creates literally tens of thousands of small files (every Usenet post
is a file). Under the PB, if I had an unclean shutdown it could
take as long as 2.5 hours to start up if fsck_hfs had to be run.

When I installed the final, I knew I wanted a seperate UFS volume to hold my news spool,
if nothing else. I haven't had an unclean shutdown in the final yet (yay!), but I would
definitely say that Leafnode seems faster in day-today actions
(downloading and serving articles) with its spool on the UFS volume.

UFS is certainly way slower when dealing with dual-forked files, however, as it has
to simulate them with hidden directory hocus-pocus.
 

Splinemodel

Registered
Does UFS use a B-tree? I imagine it does. . . What else are you going to use? I'm thinking about making a UFS partition, at least, but HFS+ is a tough algorithm to beat.
 

mr_mac_x

'No Avatar' avatar
UFS is really slow in my experience:

sherlock: 24 bounces in dock (UFS)
sherlock: 17 bounces in dock (HFS+)

I know this isn't scientific or anything, but UFS was a lot slower. It was easy to tell.
 

PoweMACuser

Registered
I have tried it. Under UFS,

1. The speed of Mac OS X is slower
2. When reformat back to HFS+, two bootable Harddisk (system folder X ) is found even you have only one bootable Harddisk(system folder X)
3. You never be able to rename the harddisk "/" to other name. It will automatic rename back to "/"

G4/400/20GB/265MB/GIGABYTE/
 
Top